History repeats itself with anti-China land ownership proposals
cnn.com
cnn.com
My take comes down to what I will call “bilateral fairness”. Put a different way: If country A does not allow country B to buy property, then, country B adopts the same rules.
Why should B allow it if A does not?
To me that seems common sense, or courtesy. I’ll treat you the way you treat me.
I realize something like this, implemented without thought, can be a serious slippery slope. This is just a thought exercise, not a rule to change the world tomorrow.
In all seriousness, my thinking is that the behavior has to be reciprocal.
The scenario might be something like this:
- A allows citizens from access to X
- B prohibits citizens from A from access to the same X in their nation
- A adopts the "I will treat you as you treat us" policy
- A prohibits citizens from B from access to X
- If B's policy changes, A reverts to their normal treatment of others
I did say that the simple statement of this principle isn't at all perfect and is likely a slippery slope. So, please, let's not argue against some ridiculous proposal I am not making.
One example of this might be how to handle the case of dealing with a totalitarian regime? Pick North Korea as an example and, say, France on the other side of the equation.
Citizens from North Korea --if they are able to get out-- can move to France and buy property, own a business, etc.
Can French citizens do the same in North Korea? I don't know the answer to this question.
If, hypothetically speaking, the answer was: No. Would it be fair treatment of North Korean refugies to deny them property rights in France? Likely not. Not at all. What would be fair, would be to deny rich North Koreans from owning property in France. I don't think I am wrong in saying that wealthy North Koreans are likely very connected to the totalitarian government. Normal people actually emigrating to France should not have issues owning property.
You could have a requirement of citizenship or having lived in the country for, say, ten years, etc. In other words, a set of rules to ensure that there's mutual, reciprocal equal treatment and fairness.
The situation with China and, well, the rest of the world --not just the US, assuming that would be naïve-- is that they are buying-up everything they can, from the tip of Patagonia to Alaska. To that point, look at what they are doing in Argentina's south:
https://www.gauchoholdings.com/news/industry/2011-09-17-chin...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-argentina-china-ins...
https://www.intelligenceonline.com/government-intelligence/2...
If you think the farm land question in the US is what we are talking about here, you might want to take some time to google around and get a picture of what China is doing around the world, in every continent. They are not benevolent actors at all. They have reached a stage where they can flex their financial and technological muscles. China is, and will likely be, the single largest driver of ecological destruction around the world for years to come.
This is why I went out of my way to talk about countries "A" and "B". This isn't about the US alone. This is a global issue, has been so for over a decade.
In a nutshell: China should not be allowed to own anything we (the world) cannot own --really own, not borrow from their government-- in China. We treat them the way they treat the rest of the world.
That makes it a lot worse no? It wasn't fully abolished until 1965 when racial barrier was finally taken down. So that was 83 years. Think clearly about what you're suggesting.
Why is it that people have lost the capacity to just talk and explore.
This law is absolutely irrelevant. I am NOT suggesting anything even remotely like it. In fact I am not suggesting any law whatsoever.
I am exploring this idea (not proposed legislation) of reciprocal treatment for certain things between countries.
To continue the China example, here are the rules:
https://yklaw.us/buying-property-in-china-as-a-foreigner/
Among some of the details, this is most notable:
"The government owns the land on which your property sits. You lease it for 70 years (if it is zoned for residential use)."
"If you purchase an older home, the government has the power to purchase your home and tear it down for new construction."
OK. Let's have the entire world apply the same rules to Chinese citizens.
What is wrong with that?
I cannot go to China and own farm land, dozens of homes and businesses. Why is it that they can go to France, Italy, Argentina, Spain, Chile, Brazil or anywhere else and buy-up whatever they want when they don't allow foreigners equal access.
That's simply unfair. Maybe even unethical.
I am suggesting that equal treatment is fair. If A allows members of B to do X, then B allows those from A to do the same.
What's wrong with that idea?
Better yet: What's right about the idea of A allowing B, yet B not allowing A?
Maybe that's the question.
Why should the US allow, say, a million people, to emigrate from China to the US when China might not allow a million from the US to emigrate to China?
This isn't about banning. This is about equal treatment. You could call it equity at an international level.
The question you are not answering (or don't want to approach) is:
Why is it OK for one side of a relationship to be restrictive?
China is an easy example of the dichotomy. I am sure we can find others.
You have also conveniently avoided the issues presented in that legal brief about owning property in China.
Why is it OK for China to not allow foreigners to really own property?
Why is it OK for China to not allow foreigners to own land? Farm land?
Why is it OK for them to expect (and even demand) to be able to make those purchases anywhere else in the world?
Can you clearly state your thinking on these last three questions or are you simply going to continue to attack me because you know there is no argument in defense of one-sided protectionist restrictive policies.
We have to treat each other equally. We demand that at a personal level. Why not at the international level?
Where did I defend protectionist policies? Instead you, from the very beginning, tried to reverse engineer a so-called principle to mollify your paranoia of yellow peril. If you actually think your principle is neutral, maybe you should explain why the US shouldn't be forced by your principle to allow more immigration until say it achieves the average population density of the world, or average GDP per capita, or average energy consumption.
We don't do what you suggest because we have our own values and we think treating people as equal individuals is good for our country. What China does has no bearing on our value.
Wow.
@dang:
This guy belongs in HN jail. Not acceptable. At all. Insults and 100% flame-war incitement. Truly regrettable behavior.
Yes, of course. Not easy at all. Start adding things like child labor and the treatment of women in some parts of the world and it can become really difficult to have a solid moral compass against all other variables.
I always say that reality isn't a single variable problem. We can have opinions based on super-simplified single or few variable scenarios. In reality, as you correctly point out, it is almost impossible to consider them all. This is why these are thought exercises far more so than serious suggestions for policy that could withstand contact with the full force of reality.