Chapter 28 2. Property rights issues

strangeness!How could imperial property rights be a problem?Is it not the king's land under Pu Tian; is it not the king's ministers on the shore of the land, isn't this very clear? However, this statement is actually vague and specious.Not to mention that in the Bangguo era, the "king land" had already been divided among princes and officials, even in the empire era, it was not really owned by the country or the emperor, otherwise there would be no land sales.In fact, not only can land be bought and sold, but the government also has to stamp the contract, which is called "red deed".The contract of buying and selling privately without going through the government is called "white contract".Regardless of whether the red deed or white deed is a certificate of land sales, it can also be recognized by the society in actual economic life.Obviously, this conflicts with the concept of "the king of the land".Because if the land is really "owned by the king" or "owned by the state", isn't this kind of sale illegal?

Therefore, some people believe that the so-called "under the sky, is it the land of the king" does not refer to land property rights, but territorial sovereignty.But we know that territorial sovereignty is a country relative to other countries.However, in the Bangguo era, the Chinese did not believe that there were countries outside of "Tianxia", and territorial sovereignty existed only among feudal states, so the princes had sovereignty issues, but the emperor did not.In the imperial era, the Chinese only knew "the world" and did not know the "international".The so-called "Tianxia" refers to the world centered on "China" (the central country).The Son of Heaven who lives in "China" is the sole agent of the Way of Heaven.The surrounding foreign states are nothing more than the emperor's ministers and Chinese ministers, but some have been able to control, some are beyond reach, some have been convinced, and some still have different ideas.Therefore, they should be treated differently, and they should be given both kindness and power, or accept their filial piety and tribute, or attack them at an appropriate time.In short, the world belongs to the Son of Heaven.Between him and Fanbang, at most, there is only a sphere of influence, and there is no territorial sovereignty at all.

So, does "Under the Putian, could it be that the king's land" refers to "governing power"?Nor is it.Governance is for the people, not for the land.Therefore, "Under the Putian, is it the king's land" can only talk about property rights (ownership), and "the shore of the land, is it the king's ministers" is talking about governance (ruling power).Of course, the foothold of these two sentences really lies in governing power.But governing power must be premised on property rights, that is, property rights determine governing power.Without property rights, how can we govern?In fact, the so-called "under the sky, is it the land of the king" does not only refer to the scope of the rule, but also the basis for the rule.That is to say, precisely because the whole world is the "land of kings", the people who were born and raised here can only "naturally" be "subjects of kings".Obviously, the two "Moffees" talk about both governance and property rights.Governance is the foundation, and property rights are the premise.In other words, it is only because Heaven has granted the property rights of the world to the Son of Heaven that he has the right to govern the people of the world.

Unfortunately, this premise is entirely fictional.The reason why the emperor can rule the world is not really because of "mandate of heaven", but because of "violence".Almost all the dynasties of the past dynasties were defeated.This is true for Qin, Han, Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing.The dynasties established by the Wei and Jin Dynasties through conspiracy and usurpation were actually created by fighting.A regime established entirely by usurpation cannot last long (such as Wang Mang's "New Dynasty").Therefore, whether it is property rights or governance rights, they are actually possession rights.

This kind of possession of the empire has almost no restrictions, that is, not only the possession of property rights, but also the possession of personal rights, which is a kind of "unlimited property rights" and "unlimited governance rights".Therefore, although the empire had to partly share its resources and wealth with its subjects, it still retained and controlled the absolute power of life and death.As long as the emperor or the government has a plausible reason (sometimes even such a reason is not required), they can arbitrarily deprive subjects of their property rights and even their right to life.Not only can the subjects have no objection to this, but they have to kowtow like pounding garlic to "thank the Lord Long En".The reason why this is possible is that whether it is land, property, or everyone's life, it all belongs to the emperor in the final analysis.This is the root of all the evils and disturbances of the Empire.

Such a tengu swallowing the moon-style possession will encounter problems in theory and practice, so after swallowing, you have to spit it out.Theoretically speaking, what belongs to the emperor is also what belongs to the subjects, because the emperor is nothing more than the "lord of the people".Without the people, the emperor would really become "lonely".Similarly, if the people have nothing, how can the emperor have it?What's more, there are so many resources and wealth in the world, how can the emperor enjoy them all by himself?Therefore, the basic situation in history is: Except for the "official land" that is clearly stipulated to belong to the country, other lands can be said to be "shared" by the emperor and his subjects.The emperor has a share, and the subjects also have a share.The subjects have a share, so they can buy and sell; the emperor has a share, so they can confiscate it.However, although the subjects have a share and can buy and sell, it still belongs to the emperor in the final analysis.For this reason, when the subjects used these lands, they had to pay taxes to the emperor.When buying and selling these lands through official procedures, it is also necessary to indicate the share of the tax payable.On the contrary, when the emperor confiscated these lands, he did not have to pay.Only when the land is expropriated, some compensation is given out of the consideration of "benevolence and love for the people".

But we cannot simply call this system "private ownership", and we cannot simply attribute the empire's free possession and plunder of the people to "the evil of private ownership."Because not only the property rights of the empire's resources are unclear, but the identity of the emperor himself is also unknown.As an individual, he is private; as a country, he is public.Because it is a public, the emperor is also called "country", "court", and "county official".Because it is private, the emperor called himself "United".The original meaning of couplet is self, that is, private.It is both a country and private, so the emperor's identity is "distinguished between public and private", just like the "king land" does not know who it really belongs to.

Of course, in most cases, or under normal circumstances, people still emphasize its nature as a national symbol and representative, that is, to emphasize the "public" side of the emperor's identity.Well, since "the son of heaven is selfless", the emperor should have neither private affairs nor private property.But that's not possible.After all, the emperor is a living individual, how can he have no private affairs and no private property?In fact, the so-called "Wang Tian" refers to the emperor's "private land"; the so-called "big inner" refers to the emperor's "small family"; How about Lianyi", then it means "I personally think".It's just that this "individual" is so big that it can be equivalent to the entire empire.

Since the identity of the emperor "does not distinguish between public and private", the land of the empire must also have "unclear property rights".Not only is it unclear in fact (it is both "owned by the king" and "owned by the people"), but it is also unclear in terms of status (it is both "owned by the state" and "owned by the king").In fact, no one has ever seriously thought that "King's land" is "the emperor's private property".As the agent of "the way of heaven", the emperor is nothing but the "general representative" who manages these "public properties".Because it is the "general representative", it can "change the term", that is, "change the dynasty".However, first, the change of office is not only a change of people, but also a change of surname and family; second, the way of change of office is not democratic re-election, but armed seizure of power (such as the Ming and Qing Dynasties), or conspiracy to usurp power (such as the Wei and Jin Dynasties); Third, the re-election does not hold a citizen's assembly or a representative assembly, but in the name of "Heavenly Way".But in any case, the possibility of a change of office means that the world is not privately owned by the emperor, otherwise it cannot be called "changing the dynasty", but "seeking wealth and killing one's life".

Since the world is not privately owned by the emperor, the empire should use "public bidding" (election) to find the best "agent" for this "public property".Unfortunately, no one is doing this.On the contrary, in order to ensure that one family monopolizes the world, the emperors of all dynasties, especially the founding monarch, have spent so much thought, how many methods, how many methods have been thought of, and how many good people have been killed!Isn't the deceitful nature of the so-called "public nature" (public world) of the imperial system clearly revealed?

However, those Confucian scholars who advocate "the world is for the public" even go so far as to make a show of this obvious fake public aid!Their logic is: what is owned by the king is owned by the state, what is owned by the state is owned by the public, and what is owned by the public is Datong.Datong is better than a well-off society, and public ownership is better than private ownership.This is again extremely deceptive.King ownership is not equal to state ownership, as mentioned above; state ownership is not equal to public ownership, and it is not difficult to prove.Aren't many dictatorships in today's world just connecting their private treasury to the state treasury?Don't their so-called "presidents" just regard the treasury as their private pocket?There are public ownership in name and actual public ownership.A system does not necessarily belong to the public just because it claims to be state-owned.On the contrary, both history and reality have proved that the more an authoritarian regime, a centralized system, advertises that "the world is for the public", the more selfish it will be to the extreme. The empire is such a system and regime that is selfish to the extreme.Its goals and actions are first to satisfy the emperor's own selfish desires, and then to meet the various needs of the bureaucratic group.Of course, they won't admit it publicly.Orally, they have to declare that "the people are the most important, the country is second, and the king is the least".But in reality, it is "the king is the most valuable, the official is second, the country is the most important, and the people are the lightest", or "the king is the most precious, the state is the second, the palace is the most important, and the people are the lightest."For the emperor, it is "the emperor is the most valuable, and the country is second"; for officials, it is "the emperor is the most important, and the official is second"; anyway, it is just the opposite of what they advertise. But we can not think that this is a private system, because it does not recognize private rights. Before the 20th century, the Chinese never declared that "private property is sacred and inviolable".We do not have such concepts, nor do we have such laws.In the so-called "legal system" of the empire, only the emperor is sacrosanct.Moreover, what is sacred and inviolable is first and foremost the dignity of the emperor, as well as his power and status, not his property.Others, including common people, including officials, including their property, including their human rights, can be violated arbitrarily.In the Ming Dynasty, even the ministers of the imperial court could "fight in the court", not to mention ordinary people, not to mention their private property! In fact, traditional Chinese society has neither real and thorough public ownership and the concept of public ownership, nor real and thorough private ownership and the concept of private ownership.And, we can also say with certainty: never.Some scholars believe that the Datong era (clan society) practiced public ownership (the world is the public), and the Xiaokang era (bangguo era) practiced private ownership (the world is the family), which can actually be discussed.First of all, there are different understandings of whether "the world is the public" and "the world is the family" in "Book of Rites·Li Yun" refers to property rights or governance rights.Mr. Fan Shuzhi believes that the key to these two sentences lies in "public power" rather than "ownership".The characteristics of the world of Great Harmony are "selecting the virtuous and capable, emphasizing trust and repairing harmony", and the supreme leadership is "passing on the virtuous and not passing on the son", which is "the world is for the public".After the abdication of Qifei Zen, the highest power was inherited from the family, and the "common world" was changed into "family world", and the generation of great harmony was replaced by a well-off society. This is the so-called "the great way is hidden, and the world is home "(Please refer to "Sixteen Lectures on National History"). Mr. Fan's argument is very reasonable, because the way of regime change can best see whether this "world" is public or private.If power cannot truly become a "public tool of the world" (public power), the so-called "public world" is very suspicious.But I think that governance comes from property rights, and without property rights there is no governance.The reason why the well-off world is "adults and generations" (hereditary) is because people at that time "love their relatives, each son their sons, and their goods are their own."Therefore, it is also reasonable for Mr. Fan Wenlan to interpret "the world as home" as "transforming public ownership into private ownership" (Volume 1 of "General History of China"). However, we need to analyze the so-called "public ownership in primitive society".Within clans and tribes, resources and wealth may be shared; between tribes, the boundaries are clearly drawn.Not only is it beggar-thy-neighbor, but it also wages wars and takes other people's property for itself. How can there be such a thing as "the world is for the public"?Therefore, the ownership system in primitive society can only be called "tribal ownership" or "clan ownership", or "clan ownership" for short.The ownership system in the state era can only be called "family ownership" or "family ownership", or "family ownership" for short.As for the imperial era, two systems coexisted. On the one hand, it was the "state ownership" (state ownership) of "under the sky, is it the king's land?" On the other hand, it was the "family ownership" ( family ownership).This is also quite right—it is both "state-owned" and "family-owned". Isn't it "state" together? So, is this system of "state-owned" and "family-owned" coexisting, public or private?Can't tell either.In fact, just as "wangyou" is not privately owned, it is "state-owned"; "family owned" is not privately owned, but "publicly owned".Because land, houses, and other means of production and means of living are shared by family members.Parents are the same as the emperor, but they are the general agents of these "public properties".As the head of the family, he has the right to control the family property, but not exclusive ownership.Ownership is for the whole family, with each adult male member having a share.However, although it is said that "everyone has a share", the share is not clear unless the family is "separated". The premise of "family division" is "to get married", so the result is only "distribution of production to households", not "distribution of production to individuals".The divided property is still "family owned", not "individually owned".As a real "private", an individual does not own private property or private property that only belongs to "one's own private".The only exception is the negligible "private money" of the female spouse. So, is "family ownership" (family ownership) "public ownership"?no.Because the "public property" of a family is private compared to other families.It cannot be called "collective ownership" because there is no individual "equity".In fact, the "family ownership" in the tribal era, the "family ownership" in the state era, and the "state ownership" in the empire era are all the same.Therefore, from clans, tribes, states, and empires, we have never had complete and complete public ownership, nor have complete and complete private ownership, only "unfair and private, public and private, half public and half private."