The following was an essay written for my college course, “Globalization and Special Education Rights”. Specifically it is on China and how they deal with the subject of education of the disabled.
After considering the texts of Spring, McCabe, and Xu on the subject of equal education in China (and more specifically for the disabled), I would like to argue three main points. Firstly, that McCabe’s studies can be viewed from a different perspective that may bring any conclusions originally drawn into question. Secondly, I will show that aspects of Xu’s studies are based on unclear standards. And lastly, to conclude an overall argument that while there may be good intentions in the Chinese system, it can be viewed as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I would like to begin by providing a basis by which to view the Chinese way of government in a different light in order to consider some broader implications. Let me begin with a simple premise – a premise very fundamental to the subject of educational rights. The premise is the answer to the question of, “What is the source of our freedoms as human beings?” I believe I can confidently establish that our freedoms (i.e. our rights) come from nature. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “All men… are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights [emphasis mine].” To be more neutral, I will replace “creator” with “nature”. Allow me to present an example: the freedom of speech. Our freedom of speech comes from nature. I can justify this by saying a man can speak whatever he chooses. He may suffer consequences as a result of man-made laws, but there is no physical law of nature that prevents him from physically doing so. If I have successfully demonstrated the soundness of my premises, I can then conclude that since our freedoms come from nature, they do not come from government. To put it another way, rights are not granted by governments, because something cannot grant what it does not possess in the first place. Freedoms are an inherent property of human beings. Therefore, freedoms (i.e. rights) are possessed by an individual not a group, society, or government - because, to reiterate, a group, society, or government cannot grant what it does not possess. Now that I have established a basis for a differing perspective on the subject of rights, allow me to view the McCabe and Xu studies through this new perspective.
Firstly, I must point out that The People’s Republic of China is a socialist government whose very constitution violates the argument I just made above. Article 51 states, “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China, in exercising their freedoms and right, may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society, the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens [my emphasis] (Spring, 51).” So in other words, “the state” (a group), “society” (a group), and “the collective” (a group) all have rights (which I already established don’t exist) over the rights of the individual (who is the only entity that does have rights). The last entity listed is the most absurd to me – the rights of “other citizens”. The reason I find this absurd is because its meaning contradicts everything else appearing in the sentence. This article attempts to claim (and rightly so) that rights come from the individual. Yet in the same sentence it implies that an individual’s rights are subjugated to the collective (society, government, etc.). As an extension of what I established above, a collective cannot possess their own rights, because groups do not exist – they are abstractions. Take a forest for example. Can I see a forest? Can I touch a forest? No, I can only see and touch individual trees. Likewise, I cannot see a society, I cannot touch a government. They are abstractions, and therefore cannot possess rights. Why is this all relevant? Because McCabe is advocating aspects of the Chinese system that has a positive outcome, but those outcomes are based on a system in contradiction to the nature of rights! So unless McCabe is advocating nations adopt a socialistic government, the benefits obtained would not be possible. In other words, the achievements of the Chinese system are not mutually inclusive with a free society. And I do not believe some limited advancements in especial education is justification for surrendering a free society in exchange. This also applies to the compulsory education of the system. To use a visualization favored by philosopher Ayn Rand, compulsion by the government is another way of saying “at the point of a gun” (The Virtue of Selfishness). This may sound extreme, but it is nonetheless accurate. The term basically refers to the fact that if something is compulsory, it is dictated by law. If you do not follow the law, you might be thrown in jail (this would obviously happen at the point of a gun). Or, you might be fined, but if you refused to pay the fine, again, you would eventually be facing a knock on your door by a police officer with a gun. The only way to enforce anything compulsory is to do so by force. There could not be a worse infringement on individual freedoms, in my opinion. Whenever one wants to justify compulsion, it would be appropriate to ask this simple question of its alternative: “But don’t I have a right not to if I so choose?” This is the slippery slope I view in this subject. Just because it is in someone’s best interest to do something does not give any collective the right to take away the decision by the individual not to. The ends simply cannot justify the means. Because once you accept that premise, you have created a precedence that can irrevocably destroy the concept of freedom. This is not to say the encouragement of education is a negative thing. However I feel it is important to realize the basis from which we as a people proceed. I believe compulsory education can be replaced by education awareness programs funded through private donations and charities. Why should these programs have to operate by private donations? Because the alternative is slavery. I will explain. Whenever you fund a program through government taxation, you do so “at the point of a gun.” If a citizen does not pay their taxes in order to fund these programs, they will be thrown in jail at the point of a gun. The alternative is to enslave oneself equal to the percentage of one’s income that is taxed. Every tax paying citizen does this already. If 20% of a citizen’s income is taxed, then that citizen could be viewed as being 20% enslaved by the government. There are two alternatives – do not work at all, in which case society would collapse (read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged for an example of this), or jail. Why have I given such an exhaustive examination of these concepts – to make what otherwise would be construed as an abominable conclusion… Why is it my fault that a child is handicapped? The answer may coldly be, “it’s not”, but I needed to put things into context first. Ultimately, a person must never be asked to sacrifice themselves for the sake of another - that is the slavery example I cited above. It is an unfortunate fact of life that handicapped people exist, and will continue to exist. But if we look one step further back n the chain of events, ultimately this responsibility relies on the parents. Again, it was not my choices, actions, inactions, etc. that resulted in the handicapped child coming to be. But if I am forced to fund a social program for something of which I was not a party to, where is the justification? I want to make clear that I am not advocating that these programs should not exist. What I am opposed to is compulsory funding of any social program. Why? Because I was not responsible for the situation, and I do not sanction another’s desire to enslave me for their benefit. These program are indeed noble, but they must, for the reasons I have outlined, exist as a result of private, voluntary donations. They must. The alternative is slavery.
The preceding argument naturally segues into my second point. The McCabe article references that parents who successfully advocated for their children’s inclusion in public schools succeeded (p. 20). Clearly these are loving, caring, and active parents. Rather than spending this effort fighting for inclusion in public schools, why don’t these parents focus their efforts on getting special individualized private education for their children? After all, every hour spent advocating is an hour that could have been spent working a second job to pay for your own child’s special needs, and your child’s needs are your responsibility (as I argued above).
The studies presented in Xu’s article also have difficulty when their premises are examined. The studies discussed are intended to measure quality of life. When faced with that phrase, I can only ask, the quality of whose life? The poor person not earning a living, or the fellow citizen enslaved to support him through social programs? Quality? By what standard? At least there we are presented with an answer (albeit one that just raises more questions). The quality is measure by four factors. One of them, XI, is the standard of happiness (p. 745). Whose happiness? By what standard? There must be as many different answers for “what is happiness?” as there are people to ask it. SHOU is the standard for long life (p. 745). Based on what factors? FU is the standard for fortune (p. 745). By what standard? How is fortune calculated? To include it as a standard in this study implies that there must be control over that which something, by definition, cannot be controlled. After all, if fortune is not controllable, what can be gained by examining it as a factor in this study?
Ultimately, the arguments I have presented demonstrate a need to examine much deeper into the very nature of rights. We need to understand this first before we can adequately examine and judge these issues. Many social programs have noble and worthy goals, but we must accept them for what they are – charities. If we pass this role to government, we are forfeiting the very freedoms we are claiming to be fighting for.