Self-Determination

High-class mainlander Comsymps over at Taiwan's China Post, working like stakhanovites to convince Taiwanese to surrender to the Communist Chinese.

Now suppose a dissenting voter objects to the outcome of [a hypothetical independence referendum].  Suppose she says, "I am a proud citizen of the Republic of China.  I want my country to include the Chinese mainland.  I refuse to be reclassified as a citizen of Taiwan!  You are trampling over my right to determine my political status!"  How will champions of Taiwan independence respond?

Actually, if that's the tack you want to take, then the right to determine one's political status is being trampled right now -- by the ROC constitution.  And in the complete ABSENCE of any independence referendums!  Because it takes all kinds to make a country -- Taiwan independence advocates, elderly Japanophiles . . . youthful America lovers:

I am a proud citizen of Taiwan / Japan / America.  I want my country to include Taiwan / Japan / America.  I refuse to be classified as a citizen of the Republic of China!  The R.O.C. constitution is trampling over my right to determine my political status!

A reply to all of them might go something like this:

The classical liberals of the nineteenth century believed that individuals should be free to determine their own lives. It is why they advocated private property, voluntary exchange, and constitutionally limited government. They also believed that people should be free to reside in any country they wish. In general, therefore, they advocated freedom of movement. Governments should not compel people to stay within their political boundaries, nor should any government prohibit them from entering its territory for peaceful purposes.

An extension of this principle was that individuals should be free to determine through plebiscite what state they would belong to. This is distinctly different from the collectivists’ notion of “national self-determination,” the alleged necessity for all members of an ethnic, racial, linguistic, or cultural group to be incorporated within a single political entity, regardless of their wishes. Thus, for instance, the Nazis demanded that all members of the “Aryan race” be forcefully united within a Greater Germany under National Socialist leadership.

[Similar demands made by Chinese nationalists, be they KMT or CCP -- The Foreigner]

Classical liberalism is closer to “individual self-determination.” Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises argued in Liberalism (1927) that the liberal ideal allows individuals within towns, districts, and regions to vote on which state they would belong to; they could remain part of the existing state, join another state, or form a new one.

Mises stated that in principle this choice should be left to each individual, not majorities, since a minority (including a minority of one) might find itself within the jurisdiction of a government not of its own choosing. But because it was difficult to imagine how competing police and judicial systems could function on the same street corner, Mises viewed the majoritarian solution to be a workable second best.  [emphasis added]

Communist Party fellow-traveller (and faux-individualist) Bevin Chu is a big fan of the the majoritarian solution -- not for the honorable intention of empowering self-determination but for crushing it.  The Post usually endorses this scheme of Chu's, but on this one occasion feigns mild disapproval:

Suppose Beijing were to argue that "The political status of China must be determined by the 1.3 billion people of China.  The political status of the 1.3 billion people of the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau must be collectively determined by the 1.3 billion people of the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau by popular referendum."

Polls have revealed that 95% of the public [in the Communist People's Republic of China] opposes Taiwan independence.  Does anyone doubt what the outcome of a referendum on Taiwan independence would be?

Good one, Bev.  And while we're at it, let's keep those rebellious Danes in the Reich by means of a referendum among all true-blooded Germanic Aryans!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT:  Quite frankly, it's surreal to be talking about independence referendums in Taiwan when the Chinese Nationalist Party controls both the presidency and 75% of the legislature.

Independence referendum in Taiwan?  Not gonna happen.

For a long, long time.

Comments

[Jean-François Amadei]

Voting is the most superficial and easiest manipulated part of democracy and leads to lousy populism, I'm still amazed that you green are still counting on it.

By the way, I'm foreigner in Taiwan and I'm pro-blue (thus against Taiwan Independance). That not mean people don't have right to chose, that just mean I have a POV on what Taiwan and Taiwanese are (Chinese).

[The Foreigner]

Voting leads to lousy populism?

OK, you win. Let's abolish one-man, one-vote and let the benevolent elites take good, good care of us.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Jean-Francois Amadei]

Don't get me wrong I'm not the kind of "everything but green" guy, as I told you, being blue doesn't me KMT worshipper, I just have some past experiences with what "vote" really worth in our western countries (I'm French).

But what I tried to mean is that I feel amazed that pro-indenpency people always try to compare words/principles like "Freedom", "Democracy", "Self-Determinism" (I'm from Corsica, I know quite a lot about this actually) against "Economics & Business Interest", "power" and "money". We're in the real word not in the care bears one, unless you use the same means as people you are fighting against, you are simply screwed.

To come back to the vote, I still maintain that it's a wonderfully malleable and manipulable tools. Of course TW people would one day have to vote, but to think they will "all" suddenly vote for the indenpence is a great mistake. The key of the success is who will hire the best marketer and best people for the campaign...If Apple can simply sell a phone that is 2/3 of the average salary, everything is (easily) possible.

[The Foreigner]

*
*
I don't believe I ever said that "all" would vote for independence, so that's kind of a red herring. In fact, I went out of my way to mention that there are people in Taiwan who would like to live in a Taiwanese Republic. And others who prefer under the PRC. And others who prefer America or even Japan.

As for political marketing, well, marketing can only take you so far -- and no further. Product quality and features count for something, too.

Otherwise, we'd all be drinking New Coke inside our Edsels.

[Jean-Francois Amadei]

"Product quality and features count for something, too"

Agree

[Readin]

The right to democracy is not a human right in the sense that freedom of religion is a human right. Democracy is simply the best method we've been able to come up with for protecting human rights.

Perhaps ideally, each person would be his own small country so that within his own country his human rights would be secure. But we know what would happen. Many small countries or groups of small countries would invade other small countries and no one's rights would be secure.

So let's take a moment to consider the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence: "..all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

There is the recognition that a government is needed to protect human rights, and that the government derives just powers from the consent of the governed. Obviously you can't get 100% consent, but with democracy you at least get 50% compliance.

Given the various cultures and peoples, in many cases you will have better agreement if your government covers a small homogeneous region. This was one of the ideas behind the US having individual states and a limited central government. It may longer be that way in the U.S., but it was a good idea nonetheless.

A good way to work things would be this: Any region of any country, provided the region is large enough and organized enough to form a viable state capable of protecting the rights of the people, should be allowed to democratically decide to leave. For the sake of general stability, a supermajority should be required for leaving, and a supermajority should be required for getting back in.

Taiwan has more than proven its ability to act as an independent viable state capable of protecting the rights of its citizens. Its future should be decided by those citizens, who can choose to be annexed by mainland China, to formalize their independence, or even to become a part of India or Angola if they so wish and the other country is willing to accept them. Whatever the decision, no change should occur without a supermajority vote.