In this age of rhetoric and fascinating promises, each and every one of us is concerned about the rights of our citizens to housing, health and education. Sadly, these rights are not seen by some as the basic rights of the people, but as tools for economic development.
There are many "economists" dressed in Chinese clothes around us, who explain how to promote economic development through the marketization of people's right to housing, health and education. At first glance, it sounds like you are in a beautiful world like a utopia, but if you taste it, you will find that there are many "ingenious" logical traps mixed in.
1. Right of residence
Let's look at this "right of residence" first. Economists have argued for stimulating economic growth by easing restrictions on property development and lowering barriers to home purchases. As soon as this remark came out, the beautiful scenery of "everyone has a house to live in, and every family has a courtyard" appeared in the eyes of many people. However, this gospel of "housing for all" ignores an important problem - the nature of houses is for living, not investment. When houses are given too many financial attributes, when every family sees property as the only pool of wealth savings, should we still applaud such economic development?
The right of residence, which seems to be a right, is actually full of contradictions and controversies. Some see housing as an investment, a commodity that drives the functioning of the market economy. They used this concept to skillfully transform the right of residence of nationals into a means of obtaining economic benefits. However, these people seem to have forgotten a simple fact: where is the quality of life for people who do not have a safe place to live?
The right to health
Let's talk about the "right to health". The arguments of economists who advocate economic promotion of the right to health seem unassailable. They advocate reducing the country's financial burden by reducing medical spending and weakening medical insurance protection, thereby unleashing more economic vitality. However, can such "mitigation" really be exchanged for the health of the people? When a sudden catastrophic illness puts a family in trouble, when high medical costs are the last straw that breaks the camel's back, do we still have the courage to talk about economic development?
Under the slogan of economic development, these people see health as a business opportunity rather than a fundamental right of citizens. They promote the marketization of drugs, treating hospitals as enterprises and medical staff as salespeople. This short-sighted behavior ignores the importance of health for people and the importance of medical care to social stability. When disease spreads among helpless people, when medical resources become scarce and expensive, what can economic development gain from it?
The right to education
Finally, there is the "right to education". Economists emphasize that by cutting education input and relaxing education policies to attract more labor resources, thereby increasing economic growth rates. This may seem attractive at first glance, given that education is an important way to nurture talent and drive innovation. However, this seemingly good reform ignores a key issue – education aims not only to improve personal skills, but more importantly to develop a sound personality and the ability to think independently. When the essence of education is misinterpreted as simple skills training, when the purpose of education is changed to a stepping stone to the pursuit of material interests, can we still be proud of such economic development?
When the right to education is seen by some as a right to enhance economic development, it is in fact subtly transformed into a commodity by them. They advocate the marketization of education, treating schools as businesses and teachers as salespeople. However, they ignore a fundamental fact: education should be a national right, not a tool for economic gain. When the equity and universality of education are called into question, when the power of knowledge is shelved, what can economic development gain from it?
IV. Conclusion
To sum up, this discussion on economic development and national rights and interests is undoubtedly an "ingenious" logic game. Those seemingly good economic development strategies actually use the right to housing, health and education as tools to promote economic development. However, is such economic development worth expecting? When living is no longer living, health is no longer health, education is no longer education, can we still see true happiness in it?
We should remain vigilant in the face of those who skillfully use national rights to promote economic development. We should see clearly their true purpose and the truth behind what they call "economic development". More importantly, we should uphold our belief that citizens' rights to housing, health and education are basic human rights, not tools for any economic development.
In this seemingly ingenious game of interests, we need to be soberly aware that economic development cannot be at the expense of the basic rights of citizens, and we must always adhere to the people-oriented development concept. For the sake of our lives, for the sake of our future, let us jointly resist this model of economic development at the expense of the people. Let us call together: respect the basic rights of the people and let economic development truly serve the people!
Thank you for reading, welcome to leave a message in the comment area to discuss.