Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Western vs Chinese education system

rated by 0 users
This post has 10 Replies | 5 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 103
Points 2,100
MadMiser Posted: Sun, Aug 12 2012 9:38 AM

I was talking to some Chinese friends today, friends with no education in economics, and asked them whether they needed planning permission from the local authorities for building on their property. They said they do, to which I responded that we also do in my country (Australia), and they were shocked, and asked "but don't you own your property there?" (as opposed to China, where property is not owned, but leased from the government). I was at a loss for words. How is it that the explictly socialist, propoganda-laden Chinese public education system managed to produce people with a clearer understanding of property than the average public-sector economist? Maybe the propoganda in the Chinese schooling system is too obvious, and lacks the potency of subtle environmentalist indoctrination.

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 10:18 AM
Thats a good question, I think it is probably more to do with the fact that the concept of ownership is native in the human psyche. Also, chinese propaganda wouldnt be designed to do the same things as western propaganda, so it would be easier for them to get an accurate appraisal of a foreign culture, at least in that respect.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 11:43 AM

and they were shocked, and asked "[...] (as opposed to China, where property is not owned, but leased from the government). I was at a loss for words

Obviously they caught you in your own cognitive dissonance. The obvious answer is "No, we don't own our property here."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 103
Points 2,100
MadMiser replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 10:42 PM

Then who does own it? I guess it could be said that the Queen owns it, and in practice we're only leasing it indefinitely, but we say we own it for convenience's sake. I suppose I should just be glad that in Australia the lease really is indefinite; haha, unlike countries with inheritance and gift taxes like the US, where only half of the lease is held indefinitely, with the other half reverting back to the government when one dies or tries to gift it to someone. Any estimates on how much wealth has been destroyed by the US inheritance tax since its inception?

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 79
Points 1,490
Walden replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 10:59 PM

The Chinese also seem to be rather ambiguous about the notion of intellectual property.

I remember being harshly berated by a teacher as a kindgartner when my story book we were assigned to write bore too close a resemblance to a popular children's story about a particular mischievous monkey.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,288
Points 22,350
Aristippus replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 11:25 PM

Then who does own it?

Take your pick:  local councils make you pay taxes in relation to land value and can prohibit you from having or doing certain things on 'your' property.  The State governments can make you pay taxes and can also confiscate the land.  The Commonwealth can also confiscate the land.

The Voluntaryist Reader: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/ Libertarian forums that actually work: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 103
Points 2,100
MadMiser replied on Mon, Aug 13 2012 12:15 AM

True. I suppose it is possible to completely own land in Australia if you homestead somewhere in the outback though, an area that has no local government and is too rural for the state to bother about. Has anyone ever considered trying to set up a free state in the outback, along the same vein as seasteading? It'd be extremely expensive to provide water and power, but then building an artificial libertarian island would also be extremely expensive. It wouldn't technically be free from the State, but State intervention could be avoided simply by not letting the State know that it exists. haha; it's not like the government regularly patrols the outback/desert looking for free states to stomp out.

As to Chinese views on intellectual property, they're probably not that different from the average westerner. The Chinese government just doesn't let the MPAA boss it into enacting intellectual property laws of which the majority of the population almost certainly don't approve, unlike western governments (how many people would vote 'Yes' on referrendum about whether to jail people who downloading copyrighted content? Not many, I'd wager.). China's government isn't separated from the judiciary, so it has no need to fear international legal pressure of the kind that the MPAA can use to bully smaller countries.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,288
Points 22,350

There are already some ridiculously small 'free states' in Australia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronations 

Perhaps a Libertopia in the outback could work, but I doubt the competing Australian government would look kindly on it if it took off...

The Voluntaryist Reader: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/ Libertarian forums that actually work: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 5
babau replied on Mon, Aug 13 2012 4:41 AM

..some info to help "shape" from `illusions`,`hallucination`,`brain-pollutions`..etc .. cheeky

Meet Your Strawman http://www.yourstrawman.com/

SOVEREIGNTY AND FREEDOM

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Freedom.htm

..& very good  reads..from:

http://ebook.groupsite.com/main/summary

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

Fascism?

Government owned property with private property and capitalism as symbols?

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 10
Points 200
packman replied on Mon, Aug 13 2012 11:54 AM

Based on this criteria - is there any country in the world in which a person can own their own real estate?

Obviously you have to differentiate between ownership as it relates to control (the right to do whatever you want on it, vs not) vs financial ownership (legal claim to the property, e.g. with regards to inheritance, trespassing, right to make improvements, etc.)

Just because you need permission to do something doesn't mean you don't have the right to do it.  Otherwise one would have to claim that no one in the U.S. drives a car, because you need to have permission to do so.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (11 items) | RSS