I think you're falsely equivocating the British-inspired American Common Law system with a fundamentally, institutionally different Chinese concept.
Even French and other European nations which use Civil Law instead of Common Law systems operate a good bit differently than the Anglo law systems. In fact, Chinese Law is kind of a Civil Law system mixed with Soviet Socialist Law and Traditional Chinese Law, so you'd have much more luck comparing German Law with Chinese Law.
But to then equivocate between US and Chinese law, calling them basically the same, it ignores larges differences and for seemingly no benefit.
If you wanted to say Hong Kong law system and US/UK law systems were so similar that the differences in this conversation aren't worth discussing, that's one thing.
But Mainland Chinese law, the Socialist Law system, is very different. Their Western Civil Law + Soviet Socialist Law + Traditional Chinese Law system is different, especially the Traditional Chinese legal influences, which is the topic of discussion here: how native Chinese companies can often navigate traditional law while foreign companies are held to a more strict western-influenced civil law standard.
I think you're falsely equivocating the British-inspired American Common Law system with a fundamentally, institutionally different Chinese concept.
No. I'm just observing a few factual items, like the New Hampshire law that defines a brothel as 5 or more unmarried women living together under the same roof. There are also many more laws in the US than are enforced in practice. Our Supreme Court does get around to invalidating some of them, and they arise from a very differently structured system, but the US clearly has these too.
The "false equivalence" was only in your mind, not in my text. It was only in how you imagined my motivations must have been to write such a comment, not any content of the comment itself.
>The "false equivalence" was only in your mind, not in my text. It was only in how you imagined my motivations must have been to write such a comment, not any content of the comment itself.
It's sad that you bristled so indignantly at my words that you were unable to think them through and form a good understanding.
In your haste to screech that I put words in your mouth, you in turn became the very object of your scorn and put words in my mouth.
Let's be frank:
Silly archaic laws like NH's brothel law are wholly unrelated to Business, and if a business in NH or America formed to take advantage of archaic laws they would be smacked down aggressively by a court or legislature.
That is a wholly false analogy to the Chinese Traditional and Socialist Law systems, which have precedent and are aggressively used, today, in today's world, by natives and native businesses.
We're discussing a complicated 3 headed legal system where natives have a different experience than foreigners. Your NH brothel law, and American law in general, DO NOT OPERATE THIS WAY. It's not three headed, it's one headed. It's not an amalgamation of 3 disparate world concepts, it's an evolution of 1 concept.
It's sad that you bristled so indignantly at my words...In your haste to screech that I put words in your mouth
Really now. You speculate on my motivations/intentions in black and white right here: "I think you're falsely equivocating the British-inspired American Common Law system with a fundamentally, institutionally different Chinese concept."
Silly archaic laws like NH's brothel law are wholly unrelated to Business, and if a business in NH or America formed to take advantage of archaic laws they would be smacked down aggressively by a court or legislature.
I never said otherwise. However, thanks for writing the above sentence, that cuts to the heart of the matter. I find this useful and informative.
We're discussing a complicated 3 headed legal system where natives have a different experience than foreigners.
And I deny this, where? Please look back at the comments. I'm not saying any of the things you say I'm saying. Rather you infer those things and run with them. Provide a quote that shows otherwise. In any case, thanks again for clarifying what the effective difference is.
Even French and other European nations which use Civil Law instead of Common Law systems operate a good bit differently than the Anglo law systems. In fact, Chinese Law is kind of a Civil Law system mixed with Soviet Socialist Law and Traditional Chinese Law, so you'd have much more luck comparing German Law with Chinese Law.
But to then equivocate between US and Chinese law, calling them basically the same, it ignores larges differences and for seemingly no benefit.
If you wanted to say Hong Kong law system and US/UK law systems were so similar that the differences in this conversation aren't worth discussing, that's one thing.
But Mainland Chinese law, the Socialist Law system, is very different. Their Western Civil Law + Soviet Socialist Law + Traditional Chinese Law system is different, especially the Traditional Chinese legal influences, which is the topic of discussion here: how native Chinese companies can often navigate traditional law while foreign companies are held to a more strict western-influenced civil law standard.