论文部分内容阅读
农村土地所有权“主体虚位”是表面现象,关键是所有权的权能可否具体化。“主体虚位”是一个假问题,真正的“主体”一直存在着,只不过它被遮蔽了。真正虚位的是所有权本身。农村地权秩序依然是传统的“前所有权”结构,地权呈现为一种以收益为支点的管业秩序,与所有权无关。均田制、一田多主制、土地承包制都是某种管业形式,三者可以直接比较:若以农民的具体利益作为比较尺度,历史上的最高水平是一田多主的“田面”,而非土地承包权。但是,向“田面”的发展意味着农村文化生态的根本变迁,这不是法律问题,而是一种政治抉择。
The main body of rural land ownership is the surface phenomenon, the key is whether the power of ownership can be materialized. The “subject imaginary” is a fake question, the real “subject” has existed, but it has been obscured. The real illusion is the ownership itself. The rural land ownership order is still the traditional “pre-ownership” structure, and the land ownership appears as a kind of management order that takes revenue as the fulcrum and has nothing to do with the ownership. The system of equal land, the multiple ownership of a land, and the land contract system are all forms of some kind of management. The three can be directly compared. If the peasants’ specific interest is taken as the comparative measure, the highest level in history is the “multifaceted” , Not the right to land contracting. However, the development of “field surface” means the fundamental change of rural cultural ecology. This is not a legal issue, but a political choice.