China to Allow Private Property Rights

China to Allow Private Property Rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Real0ne -> China to Allow Private Property Rights (4/4/2007 12:28:42 AM)
China to Allow Private Property Rights The National People's Congress of the Communist Chinese government passed a landmark private property law last week, by a 99.1% vote. China scholar Huang Jing of the Brookings Institution said the legislation reverses China's 60-year Communist goal to "wipe out private ownership. This is the first time [since 1949] that it's going to return to where it started, which turns Marxism upside down." A member of the Communist Party's Politburo, Vice Chairman Wang Zhaoguo said, "Enactment of the property law will serve to define and protect private ownership, condominium rights, and land contract rights." Weak property rights laws have allowed the government to seize businesses, houses and farmland, provoking protests from angry Chinese farmers and workers. "Social unrest is a deep problem for the Communist Party; there are anywhere from 70,000 to 80,000 protests a year," says Evan Medeiros, a Chinese scholar with the RAND Corporation research group. Ironically, the United States government is steadily marching toward the old Marxist goal of "abolition of private property rights" with Kelo, the Endangered Species Act, and land grabs under the guise of conservation easements, while China adopts American-like tenets of private property. China passes new law on property China Unveils Landmark Private Property Law "Abolition of Private Property" The Bush administration's march towards total control of private property continues at warp speed. Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-IA have pooled their intelligence to co-sponsor S 469, The Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007. The bill makes permanent the conservation easement tax deduction law set to expire at the end of 2007. The current law, which the Senators wish to make permanent, extends the carry-forward period for tax deductions, created by placing conservation easements on private property, from 5 to 15 years and raises the cap on those deductions from 30 percent to 100 percent for qualifying farmers and ranchers. The Bush administration announced it not only supported the Senator's legislation, but that it will include the measure in the FY 2008 Budget. Last week Sen. Baucus and Montana's other Democrat Senator, Jon Testor, coaxed $2 million from the Interior Department to buy conservation easements for hunting and fishing access along the Rocky Mountain Front. The "pork-barrel project" was dropped from last fall's FY 2007 Interior Department budget when Congress failed to pass the budget bill. Federal agencies were subsequently forced to operate under FY 2006 levels. "The news of this funding is a great reward for the grassroots effort by so many landowners to protect the Rocky Mountain Front's working ranches and wildlife habitat," said Jamie Williams, Montana Nature Conservancy head. Baucus gets $2M for Rocky Mountain Front Sen. Baucus Introduces Conservation Incentive Bill *Conservation Easements* http://propertyrights.org/headline4_frame.asp

juliaoceania -> RE: China to Allow Private Property Rights (4/4/2007 7:44:52 AM)
quote: China scholar Huang Jing of the Brookings Institution said the legislation reverses China's 60-year Communist goal to "wipe out private ownership. This is the first time [since 1949] that it's going to return to where it started, which turns Marxism upside down." Makes me wonder if this scholar thinks that China was following a Marxist model, because it never has

Real0ne -> RE: China to Allow Private Property Rights (4/4/2007 11:43:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: China scholar Huang Jing of the Brookings Institution said the legislation reverses China's 60-year Communist goal to "wipe out private ownership. This is the first time [since 1949] that it's going to return to where it started, which turns Marxism upside down." Makes me wonder if this scholar thinks that China was following a Marxist model, because it never has as a whole i would agree.. However even in america if someone tried to finger a specific form of government it would be very difficult as we have a mixture of several forms of govenment under the same roof all thought to be "democracy" if you will.

Sinergy -> RE: China to Allow Private Property Rights (4/4/2007 11:47:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: China scholar Huang Jing of the Brookings Institution said the legislation reverses China's 60-year Communist goal to "wipe out private ownership. This is the first time [since 1949] that it's going to return to where it started, which turns Marxism upside down." Makes me wonder if this scholar thinks that China was following a Marxist model, because it never has as a whole i would agree.. However even in america if someone tried to finger a specific form of government it would be very difficult as we have a mixture of several forms of govenment under the same roof all thought to be "democracy" if you will. Reminds me of all the "difference between a sub and a slave" threads. The answer lies somewhere south of "none of the above" as to what to call most governments on the planet, including what the citizens of many of those countries refer to them as. Sinergy

popeye1250 -> RE: China to Allow Private Property Rights (4/4/2007 2:47:01 PM)
Makes me wonder If I should start a business selling Rifles, Handguns and Ammo in China.

Real0ne -> RE: China to Allow Private Property Rights (4/4/2007 3:59:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Makes me wonder If I should start a business selling Rifles, Handguns and Ammo in China. LMFAO!!! G1!

SusanofO -> RE: China to Allow Private Property Rights (4/4/2007 4:15:12 PM)
I read in TIME magazine recently that many of the Chinese citizenry (especially is larger cities) is really gung-ho on the concept of capitalism, and cannot wait to get started. Much like Russia after the fall of the Berlin wall (and even before then). So much for our "evil" econonomic system here in the U.S. Capitalism might have its pit-falls, but overall, I prefer it to any alternative I've seen on offer, and so does much of the rest of the world. As for the U.S. government ever completely eroding citizens' land-use rights, etc. I don't picture that happening anytime soon. If for no other reason than because the capitalistic system of economy we have here would pose a natural intervention to doing that - *because our political system is too beholden to corporations for political funding to completely allow it to happen. Individual stock-holders (citizens) are the investors in the system that funds U.S. political races - and these folks make the final decisons about what to invest in, although they may not be very apparent, except in a "back-door" sense, due to them being "mere" investors. Some of them may not realize the political clout they can weild, but plenty of them do, and they come in all kinds of political "stripes". Also, the media in the U.S. is too on top of things to not mention it if it starts to happen (as evidenced by you citing the articles you did, for example) to not alert citizens to the possibility, and a lot of those citizens vote. Hence, they can vote representatives whose decisions on such things they disagree with right out of office. I am glad you cited the references, because I do think it pays to stay aware of things like this (I do) but - I am not taking an alarmist position about any of these developments, for the reasons I just stated. I realize Bush has ultimate "veto power", but he has less than two years left in office. I am convinced he is totally incompetent, and cannot wait for the next election. I am not losing sleep over anything he does anymore. Because I don't think he's smart or competent enough as a manager, to actually complete a lot of the things he starts, without bungling them, before his or his cabinet's plans are totally carried out. Most of the alarming things he's begun have a long time-line as far as completion. The up-side to that, IMO, is that there is time for others to intervene, and un-do more potential damage. Don't believe me? Witness the Iraq debacle, which is probably the best example I could ever name, because the time line to start the war was in fact, fairly short - and it is still very vocally (and somewhat effectively) being protested. There is an horrendous amount of damage associated w/that scenario, but it's not like many folks here in the U.S. have stayed silent about it, or aren't trying to ameliorate it. Our system of government might not be up to the idealistic standaards of some, but we still have a free press, and a capitalistic economy, which I really do think pose some natural safe-guards for citizens, as far as the fears you mention. - Susan

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.015625