China's social credit system

[fishonjazz]

You are like Sam from Quantum Leap. Making right what once went wrong. Dick. I left that garbage there for a reason.

Lol

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Honestly doesn't sound that bad to me. I'm generally a nice guy who picks up my dogs poop, doesn't litter (even picks up other people's garbage), helps people in need (car stuck in the snow, help fix a flat tire), and I don't have anything to hide. I couldn't care less if the government wants to watch and listen to everything I do.


I can see why some people would be against it though.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

I think you are failing to understand how far this system can/will go. Either that or you have an awful lot more confidence/trust in government than I do.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Ya it's still china so it's obviously not perfect but if there were a way to track good deeds and kindness and also punish people when they are assholes and doing things that are wrong and the hypothetical outcome was that people started acting nicer and being better people then I think that would be cool.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Do you think it would be cool if the government penalized you for having political opinions that they didn't appreciate? Do you think it would be cool if they offered bonuses of some sort to the biggest suck ups? Do you think it would be cool if they judged you on criteria that made no sense to you?

For example, my insurance company recently sent me a device to install in my car that monitors my driving. It beeps when you do something that it deems unsafe, such as braking too fast. After a short time I learned that I have to be extremely gentle on the brakes or I will get a demerit. So I'm driving on the freeway when someone swerves in front of me and jams on their brakes. What do I do? If I hit my brakes I'll get a demerit for sure. If I swerve into the other lane I might be able to avoid getting a demerit, but I'll risk hitting someone since I have no time to figure out exactly what's there. If I plow into the back of him (which at that moment he richly deserved) I will be at fault, of course. So I hit the brakes and got a demerit.

Shortly after that I got off the freeway. A light turned yellow as I approached it. I was at a distance where I would normally stop, but I knew if I did I'd get a demerit. So should I run through the light to keep my score high? Unintended consequences.

 

[lauriandres]

Do you think it would be cool if the government penalized you for having political opinions that they didn't appreciate? Do you think it would be cool if they offered bonuses of some sort to the biggest suck ups? Do you think it would be cool if they judged you on criteria that made no sense to you?

Joe Bagadonuts,

Doesn't the sentence "government will penalize you for having wrong political opinions" mean, that at least in USA about half the people will like that law? As long as the government is formed using the votes of the US citizens. Of course, on a city level it is possible and easier to form a political party (at least in my country), which for example promises, that poor people will get 500 euros per month. As long as the poor are united and rich people are divided (currently the situation in our capital, Tallinn), the good-for-poor-but-high-taxes-for-rich party promises something good for poor, they get enough votes to have 51% in the city parliament and of course enforce some laws so the rich people pay more fees, usually related to the stuff which are easier for the rich people to obtain.

 

[One Brow]

Doesn't the sentence "government will penalize you for having wrong political opinions" mean, that at least in USA about half the people will like that law?

I'd put it at closer to 20%, not too unevenly divided between people who think insulting the less favored should be criminalized and those that think insulting the powerful, or the symbols of power, should be criminalized. We have a strong tradition of not using the government to penalize speech that is central to what both large political parties believe, and many of the smaller ones.

 

[Jazzmix]

Black Mirror has a pretty good episode, "Nosedive" S3 E1, that kind of shows how this could go, even if it was just social and not government driven. Plus consider, this is the beginning. China's not even very good at monitoring people compared to where they'll be 5-10 years from now. They're gonna be working out the kinks in this sort of monitoring real fast.

When I saw that I immediately thought about that episode of Black Mirror. It's happening there, Orwell's "1984" comes to reality.

 

[Archie Moses]

Honestly doesn't sound that bad to me. I'm generally a nice guy who picks up my dogs poop, doesn't litter (even picks up other people's garbage), helps people in need (car stuck in the snow, help fix a flat tire), and I don't have anything to hide. I couldn't care less if the government wants to watch and listen to everything I do.


I can see why some people would be against it though.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

I'd be down for this for the dog poop thing alone. So many ****s in Daybreak let their dog **** everywhere and don't bat an eye when it comes to cleaning it up.

Although I'm certainly not a fan of a servailence state, I'm really not that afraid of either. I'm probably naive for feeling this way. I feel people should obey laws and act orderly in public.

After listening to Snowden of Rogan's podcast, I felt it's ****ed up the government, businesses and hackers can see what you do online, listen to you, track you, etc, but as an ordinary folk that's not doing anything worthwhile to follow, I'm not afraid of it. It certainly infringes on our freedom though.

 

[Jazzta]

Honestly doesn't sound that bad to me. I'm generally a nice guy who picks up my dogs poop, doesn't litter (even picks up other people's garbage), helps people in need (car stuck in the snow, help fix a flat tire), and I don't have anything to hide. I couldn't care less if the government wants to watch and listen to everything I do.


I can see why some people would be against it though.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Totally against, the govt has no business in knowing what I do in my private life as long as I don’t break the law.

 

[lauriandres]

I'd put it at closer to 20%, not too unevenly divided between people who think insulting the less favored should be criminalized and those that think insulting the powerful, or the symbols of power, should be criminalized. We have a strong tradition of not using the government to penalize speech that is central to what both large political parties believe, and many of the smaller ones.

I was more generic with my thoughts; i.e the government is not some kind of external mystical alien power, but group of people who were popular enough to get enough votes to have law on their side to create more laws until the next election. A la you should blame your neighbor or friend or coworker or some random guy who voted for somebody who is now spying on you . Also, only government is not enough to spy on you. In real life the ISP-s, hardware and software manufacturers and even energy providers must agree with that.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Joe Bagadonuts,

Doesn't the sentence "government will penalize you for having wrong political opinions" mean, that at least in USA about half the people will like that law? As long as the government is formed using the votes of the US citizens. Of course, on a city level it is possible and easier to form a political party (at least in my country), which for example promises, that poor people will get 500 euros per month. As long as the poor are united and rich people are divided (currently the situation in our capital, Tallinn), the good-for-poor-but-high-taxes-for-rich party promises something good for poor, they get enough votes to have 51% in the city parliament and of course enforce some laws so the rich people pay more fees, usually related to the stuff which are easier for the rich people to obtain.

I disagree with virtually everything you said in your post. I believe it is wrong to suppress political opinion, even if it is only held by a fraction of the population. I think that overtaxing the rich has been repeatedly proven to be a pathway to economic ruin. Can you show me a country (or even the past instance of a country) that is flourishing economically by loading high taxes onto the rich? The unfortunate reality is that rich people are smart, so when you shackle them with high taxes they move their money to a country where they can earn a higher return. These investments tend to drive innovation and create employment. Earning a wage tends to make people much happier and more fulfilled than collecting welfare.

 

[lauriandres]

I disagree with virtually everything you said in your post. I believe it is wrong to suppress political opinion, even if it is only held by a fraction of the population. I think that overtaxing the rich has been repeatedly proven to be a pathway to economic ruin. Can you show me a country (or even the past instance of a country) that is flourishing economically by loading high taxes onto the rich? The unfortunate reality is that rich people are smart, so when you shackle them with high taxes they move their money to a country where they can earn a higher return. These investments tend to drive innovation and create employment. Earning a wage tends to make people much happier and more fulfilled than collecting welfare.

I was just explaining my thoughts and technical part, not my preferences (i.e the wish of the POTUS is not enough in real world to spy on you). Of course, i was taught at the university, that power will ruin the person. I guess that is true. Of course, i depends on the specific person, but i presume, that the only difference is the price . I.e even the most honest person can be bribed, but whether it is cost effective or not, is another matter.

For example, in my country in my capital, the party who won the city election, got their majority votes from those who earn mostly less than average salary or are russians who dislike the political parties which are mostly favoured by Estonias. However, as the Estonians are somewhat divided (some are leftists, some are centric, some are righties, some are something in between, some are dumb i.e do not know what or who is Ohm's law ). So they only need to promise something a la free local public transport in Tallinn and they got the power. Later they increase the local land tax . For example, i paid for a 1600 m2 land in the suburb of Tallinn around 150 euros per year until 2008. After that it was increased by the city to almost 600 euros. The caveat is that the those who like public transport, live in big apartment buildings and those who do not live in a private house. Regarding the taxes, if you are over 65, then your land tax is quite small, a la the same land would be about 100 euros. Thankfully, the goverment of the country passed a law around 2010, that up to 1500 m2 of your primary private property land is free assuming you do not have registered any business entity to it.

 

[One Brow]

Can you show me a country (or even the past instance of a country) that is flourishing economically by loading high taxes onto the rich?

The US in the 1950s? Has any country taxed the wealthy more than that? Which countries are the ones that failed by taxing the wealthy?

The unfortunate reality is that rich people are smart, so when you shackle them with high taxes they move their money to a country where they can earn a higher return. These investments tend to drive innovation and create employment. Earning a wage tends to make people much happier and more fulfilled than collecting welfare.

However, the reality of diminishing returns also begins to apply. If you invest a billion dollars in Monaco, you won't get close to the same return as investing the same amount in the US, even after higher taxes are considered.