Objectivism Korea
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.Archive for Activism
Dokdo: Whose property is it?
Dokdo is a small group of islets in the East Sea, between Korea and Japan – to which both countries are laying claim. At stake are Dokdo’s rich fishing stocks, gas hydrates on the adjacent seabed, and an exclusive economic zone. The Dokdo region is populated by Korean fishing communities and host to a thriving tourism industry.
Korea has had administrative control over Dokdo prior to 1905 and after 1945. Existing Japanese and Korean government documents clearly indicate early Korean sovereignty.
Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims that the Korean occupation of Dokdo since World War II is in violation of international law. It claims as evidence the omission of Dokdo from major peace treaties between Japan and the Allied Powers.
How do we evaluate legitimate ownership when property claims conflict? First, we should agree on a definition of ‘property.’ A socialist’s estimation of ‘property,’ for example, differs radically from a capitalist’s. Similarly, the view of ‘property’ prevalent during an age of imperialism bears little resemblance to how we define that term today.
What definition should we give to ’property,’ when we no longer recognize force as a legitimate means of gain?
Ayn Rand once wrote, “Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property – by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” ’Property’ is that simplest but most important of notions – a man’s entitlement to the product of his work.
What is Dokdo other than a rock in the middle of the sea? As full of fish as this sea may be, it has no value until fished. Its potential as a tourist attraction is merely that – potential, until developed. Gas hydrates are useless, unless mined and processed. An investment of time and industry is prerequisite to value. Have any such investments been made in the Dokdo region by either Korea or Japan?
On the Korean side, we have a fishing and tourism industry that has, over the past sixty years, quite literally created the value by which the Dokdo region is measured today. The coasts of Ulleungdo, home to Dokdo’s fishing community, are replete with hotels, factories, apartment buildings, restaurants - all part of a substantial and long-term economic investment in the area.
Japan has also had a relationship with the region, but of a different nature. Its story begins roughly three centuries ago when Japanese citizens were banned from fishing Dokdo’s waters. Evidence tells us that Korean sovereignty over the area was recognized by the Japanese government. Japanese activity in the region was limited to occasional fishing, and a small group of squatters living alongside a tolerant Korean community.
Circumstances changed dramatically approaching the twentieth century. In 1877, Japan, equipped with an increasingly modern navy, gained full access to Korean waters through implied threats and a very one-sided treaty. By 1899, the population of Japanese squatters (mostly criminals and outcasts) on Ulleungdo had grown. In response to rising violence, a Japanese police force was dispatched. The Korean population on Ulleungdo became subjugated.
In 1905, Japan annexed Dokdo. It was incorporated into the Shimane province, as uninhabited land never before claimed by a sovereign nation (terra nullius). Around this same time, Japan gained ‘temporary’ rights to occupy key areas of Korea, in order to better wage war on Russia.
Japan eventually abandoned pretexts of diplomacy and began a formal occupation of Korea. This occupation, the vicious nature of which is known to us today, continued up to Japan’s defeat in 1945. Japanese lobbying and Allied military concerns over the looming Cold War caused Dokdo to be left out of all final peace treaty drafts. It was mentioned neither as Korean, nor Japanese territory.
Intent on expanding, Imperialist Japan brought war, looting, and all forms of subjugation across the East Sea to its neighbors. During the course of its occupation, Japan was involved with Dokdo – but certainly not invested there. Dokdo, Ulleungdo and the rest of Korea became part of Japan’s war machine - resources to be plundered, not developed.
Japan now seeks economic exclusivity to Dokdo – a property that has been developed successfully by Korea despite Japan’s plundering.
The position repeatedly taken by Korea and Japan’s major trading partners is that Dokdo is a bilateral issue. What is it about this particular dispute that has the international community so set on remaining neutral? Foreign government press releases are peppered with words like ‘fairness,’ ’sensitivity,’ and ‘objectivity’ – as if these concepts somehow precluded the possibility of coming to a rational conclusion. However, I contend that siding with truth does represent the fairest, most sensitive and objective solution. Dokdo is Korean territory.
Dokdo-Takeshima: An informative look at Korea’s territorial claim of Dokdo…
During some research, I came across a site entitled Dokdo-Takeshima.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/
It presents, by far, the most comprehensive, well written, documented, and organized argument for Korea’s territorial claim of Dokdo. It contains a wealth of primary evidence, in the form of original (scanned) Korean, Japanese, and American government and military documents, as well as maps and photos. I couldn’t recommend it more strongly if you are interested in the territorial dispute over Dokdo / Takeshima / Liancourt Rocks ongoing between Japan and Korea.
In Moral Defense of Teaching Illegally in Korea 불법으로 한국에서 영어 교사의 도덕성을 옹호
To teach English in Korea, one requires a specific employment visa issued by the South Korean government. Prerequisites for the visa are strictly enforced, and include the possession of a bachelor’s degree or higher from a university situated in a state / province in which the first language is English (a university graduate from Quebec, for example, is NOT able to obtain a visa). The process for obtaining the visa can be arduous, and that for visa extensions even more so – requiring the frequent and costly exit and re-entry of the country.
Many foreigners choose to teach English in Korea without the required employment visa – illegally. They may have had a visa initially and are unable or unwilling to obtain a new one, or they might simply have began teaching without a visa upon their arrival as a tourist.
Other teachers have an employment visa to teach at a specific school or academy, but also teach students privately outside of school time and according to conditions arranged between them and the students or students’ parents. Among foreign teachers here, these lessons are referred to as ‘privates,’ and are also illegal.
If a foreigner is caught teaching English in either of the above situations, the penalty is usually severe. Government fines can be thousands of dollars for both ‘offending’ parties (teacher and school), as well as deportation of the teacher at his / her expense. Teachers are imprisoned until such time that they can pay the fines.
If you were to search the Korean immigration site, as I have, you would find very vague verbiage regarding penalties and the legal rights of accused offenders. From what I gather, and according to information posted by foreigners who have been caught, investigation procedures used by the government are far from objective and impartial. Furthermore, the penalties are determined on a case-by-case basis, so offenders truly don’t know what to expect until they are handed down an arbitrary ruling by the immigration official in charge of their case.
Here are a few typical cases (with names omitted):
Case ‘A’
‘A’ possessed the appropriate employment visa to teach at a well-established academy in a large city. In order to supplement his income, he found several students looking for a qualified English tutor and proceeded to teach them in the privacy of their homes. A security guard at one of the student’s homes noticed the foreigner’s regular visits and called the toll-free number provided by the government specifically for reports of ‘illegal’ English teaching. A financial reward is given to the reporting party. As part of their investigation, immigration officials followed the foreigner for several days, finally cornering him on the subway and searching his bag. They found two English grammar books. It was evidence enough for them – he was fined and deported.
Case ‘B’
‘B’ was reported to the immigration department for teaching illegally by his disgruntled girlfriend (rumor has it that 80% of the time, this is the case). He was held for 11 months in a detention center because he was unable to come up with the outrageous fine he was charged with. The fine had been calculated according to the estimated amount of his ‘illegal’ income over the past year in Korea.
Case ‘C’
‘C’ came to Korea with an employment visa in hand. He had been sponsored by a smaller academy to teach English there for one year. Incidentally, the work conditions at the academy were awful and the academy management broke nearly all the terms in the contract they had signed (including agreed upon working hours, overtime pay, and paydates). The teacher rightfully refused to continue work, and the academy reported him to the immigration department as having broken his contract. The government was in a current ‘crackdown’ on illegal teaching, and were only too happy to fine and deport him – no questions asked, essentially. For more information on the low regard in which many Korean employers hold the sanctity of contract, read this section on contracts in the guide to teaching in Korea, published by the government of Canada.
Case ‘D’
‘D’ came to Korea as a visitor, and was offered employment at a small academy despite his not having the appropriate employment visa. He worked there for one year, and was eventually reported by the building’s security guard. His employer received a call from the immigration official responsible for that area. They arranged a private meeting that evening, and a $5000 bribe was paid by the employer, with no guarantees against future extortion.
Although no reasons are given for its shabby methods, the Korean government cites two reasons for the crackdown on illegal English teaching: to prevent Korean students and parents from being victimized by unqualified English teachers, and to eliminate the ‘education black market.’ The ‘education black market’ refers to any teaching that occurs outside of government-licensed institutions. The Korean government contends that parents spend a huge amount of money in the ‘education black market’ to give their children a competitive edge in all subjects, come exam time (which is true). The Education Ministry describes the problem as an unhealthy competition for education, in which less wealthy parents are unable to compete and rich children become better educated – in other words, capitalism. Of course, the real problem for the government in this situation is that they can’t tax private teaching…
What is wrong with these situations?
Well, the corruption of immigration officials and the inconsistency of legal administration aside, the primary problem is the core idea that someone needs to protect the Korean people from the big, bad world.This concept permeates Korean legislation. Aren’t Korean parents adults – able and qualified, and most importantly, possessed of the right to select the right tutor for their child? Supposedly not. Without the government’s protection, apparently Korean children would be taught by alcoholic, drug-addicted, child-molesting, high school dropout foreigners whose aim it is to come thousands of miles to deprive the good, albeit naive Korean citizens of their hard-earned money. Anytime a foreign teacher (among the thousands here) fits into one of the above categories, the Korean government has a field day complete with fear-mongering and ridiculously heavy media coverage and press releases. This article in the Asian Pacific Post gives you a good idea of what we see on the news during immigration ‘crackdowns.’
The ’nanny government’ in Korea doesn’t restrict itself to the policing of English teachers. Did you know that it is illegal for Korean citizens to gamble in their own casinos? That’s right – the Korean government was alarmed at the amount of money people were gambling away, so Korean casinos now check passports at the door – only foreign nationals get through. Another good example is the recent trade embargoes on American beef. During all of this micro-management that the Korean government engages in, the country continues to be rampant with gang-related crime, human trafficking (many of the prostitutes in the red-light districts are held against their will by heavy security), and corruption – legitimate government concerns.
How does this relate to you, if you’re teaching in Korea? Well, whether you engage in the occasional private lesson or are teaching in a way that is otherwise unlawful in this country – breathe a little easier. Because unless you’re misrepresenting yourself in some way, there is absolutely nothing morally wrong about teaching whomever you please, at whatever rate you choose to set.
A government’s proper function is to protect us from force and fraud, not interfere with our right to enter into a contract with other free individuals. Although there is still a need for discretion if you choose to teach illegally, and you should remain aware of the risks, being free of the emotion of guilt will alleviate your stress immensely. Teach to the best of your ability, and who knows? The Korean mindset may begin to change – the day may come when they realize that they don’t need to be babysat by their government. And if you are caught, don’t claim ignorance or pander to immigration officials – you can be proud of your work (the penalty will likely be the same).
If this makes you feel a little more free, pick up a copy of The Fountainhead – it will most certainly set you free in a meaningful way. And don’t be overly discouraged with Korea – in other ways, citizens and businesses have greater freedom than we do in our home countries…
Koreans Demand Embargo of American Beef 한국인이 미국산 쇠고기 수요가 출항
I made the following comment at the Seoul Times site.
10,000 people protesting the lifted embargo on American beef? People have a responsiblity to be discriminating buyers – it isn’t a proper function of government to interfere with international trade! Korean citizens can make the decision not to eat American beef on an individual basis and patronize establishments that use the beef of their choice. Calling on the government for another embargo is irresponsible and lazy. People were shouting ‘Down with the dictator!’ (with reference to the new president) at this protest – does anyone else see the irony in this situation?
http://www.theseoultimes.com (can’t link to the exact article)
Negative Christian Review of Atlas Shrugged…
I’d be interested to hear how you find Ayn Rand’s philosophy evil. How can the complete absence of force in the relations between men be described as evil? That is the essence of Ms. Rand’s philosophy.
http://shakingoffsleep.blogspot.com/2007/05/book-meme-52007.html
Debate Regarding First Nations’ Rights
“First of all, this is the First Nations land, not anyone elses. Europeans invaded this land and forced it to be theirs.”
Well actually, no. No one owned the land prior to the Europeans arriving, because nothing was being produced. The First Nations people were tribes – they were at war with each other – Sioux and Mohawk (etc, etc…) killed each other for land and food. If we are to see the Europeans as simply another tribe, there is nothing immoral about what they did. They came in, they conquered (due to being more rational and having better technology). And unlike all of the other ‘tribes’ previously in power here, we (Europeans) established a system of laws that protected people from being killed for territory, buffalo, etc…
It’s very tiring hearing the First Nations history being exalted. Our society has way too much of a guilt complex over its achievements. Before Europeans arrived, the scattered tribes occupying North America lived in abject poverty, ignorance, and superstition–not due to any racial inferiority, but because that is how all mankind starts out (Europeans included). The transfer of Western civilization to this continent was one of the great cultural leaps in recorded history, affording Indians almost effortless access to centuries of European accomplishments in philosophy, science, technology, and government. As a result, today’s Indians enjoy a capacity for generating health, wealth, and happiness that their Stone Age ancestors could never have conceived.
More here: http://www.discovervancouver.com/forum/aboriginals-abolished-canada-t162743.html&st=60
How not to argue with Environmentalists…
Like many of you, I find myself more alarmed by what I see being done by environmentalists and in the name of saving the planet, than I am by the vague threat of global warming. The Canadian government is facing extraordinary pressures to spend more money on protecting the environment by these special interest groups, while the scientific evidence for their claims remains controversial.
Environmentalism is especially prevalent here in Vancouver – a city that prides foremost on its natural beauty. (The local goverment recently spent $1 million on reforestation in Stanley Park to replace trees damaged by a wind storm this past winter – despite the fact that 1) the park is thoroughly capable of recovering on its own, and 2) the wind storm’s damage decreased the threat of forest fires which is eminent every summer in Stanley Park).
Individual rights come before the environment. This is what is moral, and it simplifies the threat posed by global warming. Rather than determining the state of the environment and what should be done about it, the only proper function of government regarding this issue involves determining who is being harmed (directly) and who is causing the harm. Individual rights – are they being infringed? If so, we correct that and move on.
Like most ideas that I take issue with as an Objectivist, environmentalism (in its coercive form) is extraordinarily difficult to fight. Why? Environmentalists cite an urgent need to protect the planet which supersedes individual rights (you’re lucky if you get so far as even arguing individual rights – this concept seems hopelessly small-minded to them).
So where does the argument go? Much like when we begin by defending Capitalism on moral grounds, but end up justifying it according to its effectiveness, we find ourselves calling the scientific claims made by environmentalists into question. Not only is this wrong (because it isn’t the major issue), it also puts us at a disadvantage if we’re not scientists.
