Ralph, I think you made a very fundamental mistake - I said "eminent
domain *abuse*". That's very different than "eminent domain". Just like
America, China too have such abuse, and the three cases where the
government was judged as wrong demonstrate that China do in fact have
its own process, and protection of individual's rights to property,
including real property, in practice and in law (as demonstrated by
China's recent contitution amendments regarding protection of real
property.)

Your anit-communism indoctrination, likely ingrained from yester years
of cold war ideology, is out dated and far from reality. Go to China
and see for yourself.

Ralph Hertle wrote:
wrote:


[text omitted]


You're wasting your time with these China bashers. They've formed
their
opinion already, even without any evidence. I can just hear people
say
"China's law and its application" this and that. Well, those who
believe China's court always side with the government, they are
wrong.
China is just like America, there is eminent domain abuse, and just
like US, China's courts have its own process.

Here are a few cases in China where victims of land use abuse sued
and
won:

http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/100939.htm


That's a typical land use and zoning code violation matter. There is
plenty
of justification for creating zoning laws that protect individual
rights.
Abuses of zoning laws by government power seekers and do-gooders are
common, and the cases wind up un the courts in the US. Private abuse
is a
matter that requires the collusion of government officials - and that
means
the taking of property or property rights or rights under zoning laws
with
out the free volition of the individual property owner.

Issues such as that in the PRC masquerade as private property issues
when,
in fact, all real estate land property except for collectives is
owned by
the PRC and is leased or use priveledges granted by the PRC.



http://www.china-labour.org.hk/iso/a...mic %20Reform



Leasehold rights are legitimate real estate interests in a free
society,
and they are identified and agreed to with volitional agreements that
may
by defended in court. That case is one of an individual fight against
the
PRC who had unlawfully taken her rights. In the PRC, however, rights,
such
that Americans know, are unknown in the PRC. They only have
priveledges
that are "lawfully" accorded by the state. Administrative decisions
determine the outcomes of disputes.

Good luck if you think that individual property owners have western
rights
in the PRC. They don't.




http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/englis...ent_338768.htm



[text omitted]

That is an example of Eminent Domain, and that is one of the more
evil
types of statism, and that exist in the USA and in the PRC. Eminent
Domain,
however, is the central principle of Communism, and in the USA
Constitution
it is a carry over from the kingdoms of Europe. The Framers of the US

Constitution erred in establishing that principle in the USA.
Nowadays we
in the USA are finding repeated examples of private firms who get
local
governments to use the Federal Constitution principle of Eminent
Domain in
order to obtain properties that don't belong to them and that they
cannot
otherwise buy. That requires the bribery, clout, and suasion of
government
officials. Several cases are currently being brought through courts,
and
Supreme Court decisions will most certainly result. A Constitutional
clash
will amount to opposition of the pragmatist-statists and the
advocates of
individual rights and individual property rights.

There are a mix of type of disputes in each of these cases.

These examples in the PRC are similar to thousands of disputes that
are
happening in the USA Local, State, and possibly Federal Courts every
day.
The issues are the same: statism vs. the rights of individuals.

Most issues like those are routinely handled by the zoning boards,
local
and state courts.

The people in the PRC are taking their first baby steps by resisting
PRC
tanks, by writing ideas, and by bringing issues before the
bureaucratic
courts of the PRC and its agencies. They have millions of cases to go

before enough quality decisions are considered to have the weight of
law,
or Common Law, and that as defined as principles may also be enacted
into
laws by free legislatures. It may take them one hundred years to get
to
where the USA is in terms of the recognition of absolute individual
rights
and the concept that the purpose of the state is to identify and to
protect
the rights of individuals.

The poster's quotation of URLs does a dis-service to individual
rights
everywhere by not explaining the relevance, meaning, and consequences
of
these issues.

Those people may or may not succeed in their cases, but the general
sense
of the omnipresent dictatorship sure as hell makes it self known in
those
reports. Note, also, that the news writers had to dance around the
politically sensitive issues regarding confrontations to the
authority of
the state and its bureaucrats.

Writer, Charles Liu, of , is an obvious
apologist of
the PRC.

Note that Mr. Liu has not come out in defense of individual rights,
and
rather, he has provided a vigorous and mixed implied defense of the
omnipresent propriety of the PRC state. Just because the little guy
is
fighting for some semblance of rights, does not mean that Mr. Liu is
against the dictatorship. It is clear that the PRC state determines
what is
justice and that it is always omnipowerful.

Mr. Liu does, however, imply that Eminent Domain is a violation of
rights,
and that it should be opposed. That is a rare viewpoint, and Liu
should be
commended for that.

Mr. Liu may have more to say.

Ralph Hertle