When Can Farmers' Land Rights Be Abandoned?

　　 Looking at this title, there may be many questions. The first question is: what is the "land right" of farmers?

In this way, I want to flicker through a muddle, because there are too many arguments about "farmers' right to land", such as: property rights, property rights, use rights, contracting rights, and management rights. In fact, for non professionals, it is mainly about the essence. The most important two aspects of farmers' right to land are:

First, this land will always belong to my name, and I will arrange it for use in the context of law and policy.

Second, when conditions are not available, no one, including the state, including the collective, and even myself, can not deprive me of my rights. With these two, we call it right, that is a professional thing. Let's first call it "land right" in a vague way.

Under the premise that the rights claim is clear, second questions are discussed now. Under what conditions can peasants abandon their land rights?

In fact, the answer is very simple: when farmers no longer need land. Then ask: when will farmers not need land?

The answer is: when they have complete social security, that is, when social and economic risks such as aging, disease, unemployment, labour, birth, disability and death are guaranteed, they may also include education and housing with the development of society, and they can give up their land rights. The reason is that land is still their last guarantee for farmers and their families.

A child's anecdote: when she was two or three years old, she took her to the street, and she asked for a toy, so she coaxed her out of money. Puzzled, she asked, "there is not a card, a piece of plug into the machine, the money came out. The child's observation illustrates the truth that if I do not lose my job, the unit will put the wage in the card. In case of unemployment, unemployment insurance and urban subsistence allowances, Cari will also have money. In terms of institutional arrangements, livelihoods are basically sustainable.

However, all this is not true or incomplete, at least until today. But farmers are not nothing. They also have land as a last resort. Because land is also a sustainable livelihood for them. As long as seeds are sown in spring, there will be harvest in summer and autumn. The most basic problem of eating can be solved.

This "Chinese characteristic" has been recognized by many foreign scholars. Why many scholars in China advocate the marketization of land free trade? At the beginning of the founding of the PRC, the peasants got the land through land reform. According to some scholars, they had "complete property right".

However, because of natural disasters, people soon sold land. As a result, there is no rural proletarian with any means of production. It can be said that this is the original intention of Mao Zedong eager to cooperate. If land is free to buy and sell, the above will happen again. Before the problem of employment and social security has been solved, the land is too centralized, the rural proletariat is overcrowded, the social stability is not guaranteed, and the economic development will be affected. It is most important to say that the peasant uprising in Chinese history is mostly for this reason.

Now, the "land transfer" should be very clear. It can only be rented, not traded. In fact, the mortgage should be opposed, because the result of the mortgage may also be lost, and the proceeds may not be sold. In fact, internationally and domestic, there are successful experiences of rural credit without collateral: there is "small loan" internationally, which is to help needy families, and there are old age mortgage loans in Hutubi, Xinjiang, which are targeted at middle-income households. Why do not our scholars study these experiences and carry them forward instead of privatizing land?

The experience of some developed countries in the agricultural world tells us that when all citizens have basic social security, the free trade of land can be realized. Of course, land scale operation is also a major event. Therefore, when migrant workers and their families have conditions, they can be encouraged to give up their land rights. It can also encourage them to give up land rights in the form of "land for security".

However, the protection mentioned here is a complete social security, that is to say, there is a saying that the old age, medical care, employment, work-related injury, birth, disability, survivors, and even education and housing security. The price of land is distorted now, and it is not worth the money in the hands of farmers. Once they are sold, they often increase their value. If the government really regards the land issue as a priority event, it is also worthwhile to give some blood to social security.

There is another question: what is the state's need to do when requisitioned land? The answer is: sustainable livelihoods with new sustainable livelihoods. We must see that in fact, the amount of cash given to farmers is not sustainable, so we must give adequate social security as mentioned before.

There is another way to make sure that farmers can share dividends with their land, so that they can have the right to share dividends. This is also a sustainable livelihood. Or to put it another way, borrowing the Chinese characteristics that was invented in the course of socialist transformation of capitalists in the past - a "redemption policy" for farmers' land to be expropriated, so as to ensure that farmers' families receive interest every year. This method can have a deadline, for example, 20 to 30 years, to ensure the smooth transition of the one or two generation.