Ah, another armchair legal scholar who learned property law from a John Locke coloring book. Let me gently unpack the nonsense here.

You claim that state ownership of land is somehow unique to China and not comparable with anything we know in the West. This is either breathtaking ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. Eminent domain exists in every Western country. In the United States, the government can seize your property for a shopping mall under Kelo v. New London. In the United Kingdom, compulsory purchase orders are routine. In Germany, the state can expropriate land for public projects with minimal compensation. The difference is that in China, the state owns the land upfront, while in the west the state has the same powers but with extra steps.

A 70-year land use right for residential property, registered and transferable, is functionally equivalent to freehold in every practical respect. It can be bought, sold, mortgaged, and inherited. I fail to see how that matters for living your life. Meanwhile, in the liberal 'democratic' model you idolize, speculation and hoarding have made housing unaffordable for an entire generation. People have homes. Your model has literal homeless encampments in every major city. But please, tell me more about how 'ownership' is superior when it leaves millions of people on the street.

Your claim that the state can revoke these lease rights at any time is false both in law and in practice. The Land Administration Law and the Property Law of China provide clear procedures for expropriation, requiring public interest justification and compensation, this is actually a stronger protection than eminent domain provides in most western countries. The idea that the state just kicks people out arbitrarily is a myth repeated by trolls who have never bothered to read the statutes. Yes, there have been abuses, just as there are abuses of eminent domain in the West.

Now run along and do your hamfisted trolling elsewhere.