The government, or state owns everything.
Then, the only use for surveying, would be for construction projects.
My question is: Do we have boundary survey needs, when there is no private property?
I've never lived in the USSR, or Communist China.
Just curious, if you know.
Here's an article (with interesting aerial photography) about North Korea's Prison Camps.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/north-korea-prison-camps_n_2766266.html&apos ;">North Korea Prison Camps
I'm betting the "boundary" is pretty darned important....particularly if you're on the WRONG side of said boundary....
Even between agencies, and I'm sure that communist countries are not exempt from this aspect of human nature, people are territorial. Agencies are run by people and people want what belongs to them, even if it belongs to them vicariously through the auspices of the agency they work for.
I gots ta get me sum o' dat vicarious stuff. Seemz too bee popyouler.
Another, perhaps less known, example of state ownership of lands is Israel. See http://www.mmi.gov.il/envelope/indexeng.asp?page=/static/eng/f_general.html
It states that 93% of the land is owned by the state!
Sheesh!
In Vietnam, only residents can own land.
When the land is left barren or unused to produce crops or for any other business or residence the government will assign the land to someone that will use the land productively.
0.02
A Harris, post: 354241, member: 81 wrote: In Vietnam, only residents can own land.
When the land is left barren or unused to produce crops or for any other business or residence the government will assign the land to someone that will use the land productively.
How 'bout that. State-sponsored AP.
eapls2708, post: 354303, member: 589 wrote: How 'bout that. State-sponsored AP.
Similar to the US in the nineteenth century. Land was abundant, but the GNP was lacking. Give anybody the land and hope like hell they make or do something with it than can be taxed or eaten....
A Harris, post: 354241, member: 81 wrote: In Vietnam, only residents can own land.
When the land is left barren or unused to produce crops or for any other business or residence the government will assign the land to someone that will use the land productively.
0.02
Seems kind of similar to the old feudal system. The king (or duke or baron or earl or whatever) owned the land. But they would allow the subjects to live and farm on it. What they grew/raised was theirs to keep. But they had to pay taxes on the land. The tax money was to show fealty and ensure that the king/duke/baron/earl/count would continue to keep the region safe from invaders and also address their grievances if they were wronged by another citizen.