This is absolutely a different story. This is the government not allowing you to travel around a country because they don’t like you.
This person can still get a job somewhere else. He can still go visit his family wherever they are. The government isn’t stopping him from living his life just because of some “social score”.
> You don't know more about the person's situation than the person himself.
Considering he had a job somewhere else, obviously he is employable.
> As long as "wherever they are" means "somewhere he can go by foot".
Or people can come pick him up. Family can buy him a bus ticket. Friends can give him a ride.
> No, the invisible hand of the market is stopping him from living his life because of his negative "money score".
Nonsense. It might be limiting his ability to live his life in a way that is comfortable/convenient, but it is not prohibiting him in a way that actually limits his personal freedom.
> Considering he had a job somewhere else, obviously he is employable.
I'm sure there are ways for them to improve their situation, but I'm also sure there are ways to improve your social credit. It would make for a bad incentive if not.
> Or people can come pick him up. Family can buy him a bus ticket. Friends can give him a ride.
Restrictions exerted by the market are easier to bypass than China's social score system, but nevertheless they exist.
> Nonsense. It might be limiting his ability to live his life in a way that is comfortable/convenient, but it is not prohibiting him in a way that actually limits his personal freedom.
Limiting someone's ability to live their life in the way they desire is what limiting their personal freedom is.
> Restrictions exerted by the market are easier to bypass than China's social score system, but nevertheless they exist.
You're still talking about a massive difference. People in China can be expressly forbidden from, say, staying in a Hotel in any particular town, simply because they are on some "list" somewhere that they don't control. And the government then exerts pressure on others to not be associated with those people. Again, we're talking about something categorically different than "market restrictions."
> Limiting someone's ability to live their life in the way they desire is what limiting their personal freedom is.
I believe this is fundamentally a worldview issue, but the truth is that we as humans aren't completely autonomous. We are restricted in numerous different ways. We can't go too deep in the ocean. We can't go more than say, 15k feet above sea level without assistance. We can't buy top-of-the-line Teslas unless we can afford it.
Being unable to travel, buy, or move around the way someone wants to isn't a limitation of personal freedom. It's a restriction on their environment. Now, if you had the money to do those things but someone forbade you, then I'd be in agreement. If we define "personal freedom" simply by what one can buy or experience, then we are in a situation in which people will never be able to find true freedom.
I don't think the social credit system blocks you from all forms of transport. From my understanding it's more like you don't get to use the high-speed trains and airlines. You still may get access to the lower speed trains/busses.
Reminds me of Airbnb and Uber review systems in some way. And those systems always keep me on my best behavior. If the government does not abuse the social credit system for petty things, it could become a force for the good.
Completely clueless. I'd say just clueless were it not for the "force" word.
Even though you used it in the same sentence with the word that describes an institution that (unlike Uber or AirBnB) has monopoly on the use of force, you still believe it may be good (for whom, exactly?).
Ubar and airbnb are commercial services. The people living within this system have absolutely no control over the definition of "good behavior." there is no opt-out. The idea that such a system could be used for anything except abuse is laughable.
14 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 42.0 ms ] threadhttps://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/awmvre/50k...
This person can still get a job somewhere else. He can still go visit his family wherever they are. The government isn’t stopping him from living his life just because of some “social score”.
You don't know more about the person's situation than the person himself.
> He can still go visit his family wherever they are.
As long as "wherever they are" means "somewhere he can go by foot".
> The government isn’t stopping him from living his life just because of some “social score”.
No, the invisible hand of the market is stopping him from living his life because of his negative "money score".
Considering he had a job somewhere else, obviously he is employable.
> As long as "wherever they are" means "somewhere he can go by foot".
Or people can come pick him up. Family can buy him a bus ticket. Friends can give him a ride.
> No, the invisible hand of the market is stopping him from living his life because of his negative "money score".
Nonsense. It might be limiting his ability to live his life in a way that is comfortable/convenient, but it is not prohibiting him in a way that actually limits his personal freedom.
I'm sure there are ways for them to improve their situation, but I'm also sure there are ways to improve your social credit. It would make for a bad incentive if not.
> Or people can come pick him up. Family can buy him a bus ticket. Friends can give him a ride.
Restrictions exerted by the market are easier to bypass than China's social score system, but nevertheless they exist.
> Nonsense. It might be limiting his ability to live his life in a way that is comfortable/convenient, but it is not prohibiting him in a way that actually limits his personal freedom.
Limiting someone's ability to live their life in the way they desire is what limiting their personal freedom is.
You're still talking about a massive difference. People in China can be expressly forbidden from, say, staying in a Hotel in any particular town, simply because they are on some "list" somewhere that they don't control. And the government then exerts pressure on others to not be associated with those people. Again, we're talking about something categorically different than "market restrictions."
> Limiting someone's ability to live their life in the way they desire is what limiting their personal freedom is.
I believe this is fundamentally a worldview issue, but the truth is that we as humans aren't completely autonomous. We are restricted in numerous different ways. We can't go too deep in the ocean. We can't go more than say, 15k feet above sea level without assistance. We can't buy top-of-the-line Teslas unless we can afford it.
Being unable to travel, buy, or move around the way someone wants to isn't a limitation of personal freedom. It's a restriction on their environment. Now, if you had the money to do those things but someone forbade you, then I'd be in agreement. If we define "personal freedom" simply by what one can buy or experience, then we are in a situation in which people will never be able to find true freedom.
Another sort of weird system came about because restaurants always lied on their tax returns, so now there are lottery tickets built into receipts: http://engineerinshenzhen.com/chinas-receipt-lottery/
Even though you used it in the same sentence with the word that describes an institution that (unlike Uber or AirBnB) has monopoly on the use of force, you still believe it may be good (for whom, exactly?).
Incredible.