Most countries have a form of eminent domain, that isn’t an indicator for authoritarianism in and of itself. What’s relevant is the checks and balances that are applied, and if they’re effectively applied.
Yes, but it’s a bureaucratic process that involves a lot of red tape and ultimately has to compensate the displaced property owner. It definitely gets abused sometimes, and property owners are often undercompensated, but there are at least thresholds that must be met.
In China, there is no private land ownership. Residents lease their land from the state. So if the state says a railroad is coming through, your lease simply doesn’t get renewed, and you no longer have the right to remain in your house. It’s efficient and highly collectivist, but discompassionate.
The US allows for eminent domain as well, no?
Most countries have a form of eminent domain, that isn’t an indicator for authoritarianism in and of itself. What’s relevant is the checks and balances that are applied, and if they’re effectively applied.
IE: it’s only authoritarian when non-westeners do it
Yes, but it’s a bureaucratic process that involves a lot of red tape and ultimately has to compensate the displaced property owner. It definitely gets abused sometimes, and property owners are often undercompensated, but there are at least thresholds that must be met.
In China, there is no private land ownership. Residents lease their land from the state. So if the state says a railroad is coming through, your lease simply doesn’t get renewed, and you no longer have the right to remain in your house. It’s efficient and highly collectivist, but discompassionate.
Those leases are 70 years long. China is not eminent domaining land by waiting half a century