The Right to Self Determination: A Thought Experiment

The Right to Self Determination:
A Thought Experiment
China Post Editorial
by Bevin Chu
May 25, 2009

The "right to self-determination" is routinely defined as the collective right of the people of a given geographical region to determine their own political status. It is defined as the collective right of the people of any nation, or would-be nation, to determine how they wish to be governed, without coercion by another nation.

But this conventional definition, considered utterly non-controversial by mainstream political scientists, is in fact conceptually defective at its very core, and gets us into all sorts of trouble. One might say that the oh so politically correct "national right to self-determination" is one of "those things that we know for sure that just ain't so."

Champions of Taiwan independence bandy about such higher level abstractions as "freedom," "human rights," "democracy," and the "right to self-determination," without ever having taken the time to understand their concrete referents.

Human beings do indeed have the inalienable right to determine their own political status. But only individual human beings have this right, not "the people of a given geographical region." As novelist philosopher Ayn Rand explained, the term "individual rights" is a redundancy. There is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

There can be no such thing as a "national right to self-determination" because a nation does not have a self. Only an individual has a self. Therefore only an individual can have a right to self-determination, the right to determine what happens to himself or herself.

Ayn Rand offered the most concise definition of rights ever formulated. She said that "a right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context." To possess a right means to enjoy freedom of action, free from coercion by other men.

Champions of Taiwan independence argue that "The political status of the 23 million people of Taiwan must be determined by the 23 million people of Taiwan, by popular referendum."

Take careful note of what champions of Taiwan independence mean. They do not mean that each of the 23 million people on Taiwan will determine his or her own political status.

No. That is not at all what they mean. That is the farthest thing from what they mean. They mean that some of the people on Taiwan will determine the political status of all of the people on Taiwan. This some may be a plurality, a majority, or even a supermajority. But unless champions of Taiwan independence can convince every last one of the 23 million people on Taiwan to vote their way, unless they can achieve complete unanimity, it will only be some, not all.

Now suppose a dissenting voter objects to the outcome of such a 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 own political status!" How will champions of Taiwan independence respond?

Does anyone doubt they will say "We're sorry. But we decided that Taiwan is our country. We decided that the Chinese mainland is not a part of our country. In any event, how can you object? Everyone was given a chance to vote, including you. Therefore you must accept the outcome. That's democracy. The majority rules. That's the way it has to be."

But if champions of Taiwan independence genuinely believe such a rationale withstands moral scrutiny, can they object when others invoke it too?

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 on the Chinese mainland opposes Taiwan independence. Does anyone doubt what the outcome of a referendum on Taiwan independence would be?

Suppose Beijing were to argue that "We're sorry. But we decided that China is our country. We decided that Taiwan is a part of our country. In any event, how can you object? Everyone was given a chance to vote, including you. Therefore you must accept the outcome. That's democracy. The majority rules. That's the way it has to be." How then will champions of Taiwan independence respond?

Hopefully this little thought experiment will give us pause. Hopefully it will motivate us to be just a little more conceptually precise when we discuss the "right to self-determination." Hopefully it will help us to understand that rights belong to individuals, not "nations," or any other form of collective.