Abolishing Agricultural hukou is the basic element of Civilization

First, the abolition of peasant identity is the starting point of other follow-up reforms. Without the difference of legal national status, it is possible to strive for the equality of other national rights. In a civilized country, the identity and rights of different people cannot be defined by law. In the theory of justice, Rawls emphasizes that this kind of discrimination is the greatest unfairness. Therefore, it is right to eliminate the difference in identity.

Second, there are many issues to be discussed later. The problem of the price scissors difference between industrial and agricultural products that once existed for a long time is a historical account. At that time, many farmers who made sacrifices have died, and now there are also descendants of farmers who work in cities. Therefore, the treatment of this bad debt can only be made up by increasing investment in agriculture, rural areas and farmers' education and medical security. Humanized compensation is an impossible operation. Even if you do it hard, everyone won't get much money.

Third, the main problem in agriculture now is that farmers do not have private property rights to land. Mr. Zhang Peigang taught me when he was in college: if land cannot be privatized, China's rural problems cannot be solved. Why? Because the flaky small-scale agricultural production is not in line with the characteristics of modern agriculture: refinement, mechanization and industrialization. The agricultural profit per unit of land is very low, and without large-scale production, there can be no modern agriculture. Therefore, I support the privatization of land. However, according to the current land laws and regulations, the ownership of rural land is collective, farmers have no ownership, and farmers have the right to plant. Therefore, before the privatization of land, what we have to fight for is the transfer of contracting rights or planting rights. In other words, there should be a market where farmers can transfer their contracted land and get a certain amount of income. At the same time, it also gets rid of the freedom of employment restricted by the low-income cultivation of small units.

Fourth, what we still need to fight for is the equal legal treatment of the agricultural population coming to the cities. Once farmers can transfer their land contract rights, they can come to work in cities. Among them, the legal discriminatory provisions of urban residents and migrant workers should be abolished. Shanghai has abolished the regulations on Social Security for non-local population, and all employed people will pay the same basic social security benefits. In this way, the work, retirement and medical insurance of the non-local population, especially farmers in Shanghai, will be initially equal. For example, if either husband or wife pays social security for three years in a row, children can attend public schools in Shanghai.

Fifth, the issue of farmers' homestead involves a question of whether they can be bought and sold. Inheritance is possible, but the current rule is that it cannot be sold to the non-local population, especially the urban population. One of the worries is that rich people in the cities are buying up rural homesteads and building former deep houses. But as fewer and fewer people are willing to live in villages, the value of homestead will be lower and lower. In rural areas, children also like to buy houses in the town when they get married, and the decline of the village will be an inevitable trend.

Sixth, the income from the nature of the change of agricultural land must be changed. At present, the government collects and stores land from the countryside at a low price, then compensates it to village-level units, and then allocates it to farmers according to the acres of land. The first problem is that the purchase and storage price is too low, and the local government has obtained a huge price differential. This price difference should be given to the farmers, and they should no longer compete with the people for profits, but should store wealth among the people. The second question is how to ensure the future employment and security of the population of the lost villages. This point should be resolved through negotiation. There is no peasant association at present, and only the village-level government and developers can determine the priority employment rights of the village population. Third, funds should be withdrawn to provide skills training for the lost village population. This is extremely important.

Seventh, China has to face the problem of de-production, so from an overall point of view, the demand for new industrial land is small. Therefore, rural land does not have more opportunities to become industrial land in most areas. The existing industrial parks have been far from meeting the needs of current industrial production. Therefore, it is unlikely that the vast majority of the village population hopes to change their fate through the change of the nature of the land. After all, villages in the city are very few.

Eighth, the village population should turn to services and industries where skills are required. It is a task that the government must undertake to transform the village population into blue-collar workers and waiters through training. This can not only promote the process of urbanization, but also change the fate of the village population. Today, to talk about what land can protect farmers is not only ignorant of the profits of agricultural output, but also deceiving the public. Can a Chinese farmer with an average of less than 2.25 mu of land count on the income of the land to get rich?