4 ms·

My concern is that China will use the scoring to make moral judgments about citizens. Yes, we have credit scores and DMV scores and some of us wind up on white

My concern is that China will use the scoring to make moral judgments about citizens. Yes, we have credit scores and DMV scores and some of us wind up on white lists (PreCheck) or black lists (No-Fly) for air travel. But determining business risk is different from determining whether someone is a moral or immoral person, and then using that subjectivity to control the population. It's value to the regime is in that subjectivity: If you threaten my political aspirations, I'll score you as immoral, report your transgressions on the nightly news and toss you in prison to be reprogrammed. The US separates church and state to prevent this.

hilop 10y ago
What does church have to do with this? We can throw people in jail for "corruption"
- ctrlalt_g 10y ago
  In the U.S., the courts can't decide whether something is moral or immoral. If we throw people in jail for corruption, it won't be because they were found guilty of having a bad moral character. It will be because of an illegal conflict of interest or anticompetitive practices or something like that. That's what a separation of church and state means in this context.
  - prewett 10y ago
    The US court sure comes close to deciding moral issues, if not actually. Abortion: some people say killing babies is wrong and should be illegal; other people say a woman has the right to kill* her baby if it hasn't been born yet. Homosexual marriage: some people say it is wrong and should be illegal; others say it is right and should be legal. So if I think homosexual marriage is wrong, the court requires that the society I live in treat it as okay, which leaves many people feeling like the court is legislating morality. (Of course, the opposite is true, too) Furthermore, the court pretty much has to rule on things like this. So it's a pretty fine line. * I freely admit to being biased on this issue, but the fetus has a heart-beat at 3 weeks; it's hard to say it's not living being. And if it's living, aborting/terminating it is technically killing it.
    - rblatz 10y ago
      Can it survive on its own outside the mother's body? Or implanted into another mothers body? If not how alive is it? But more importantly how can you enforce upon a woman the sacrifice to her body and self to carry this fetus to term? Does she not have autonomy and control of her own body?
    - grzm 10y ago
      I think I see what you're saying, and I agree that laws and morality are similar. That said, I do think they can be meaningfully distinguished. Edit: I understand you make this distinction as well. The duty of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law. The creation of the law is the job of the legislative branch. It seems to me that while people may agree or object to laws on moral grounds, the judicial branch is focussed on the application of the law itself, not the moral aspects of it. As the legislature creates the law, one could argue that they're more directly responsible for encoding morality into the law. Though some might think in some cases the judicial branch abuses it's interpretive duty by "legislating from the bench". What do you think? Edit: I suspect we're actually quite close to agreeing.
      - prewett 10y ago
        I think we pretty much agree. Rights and morality are pretty closely related, so when the court rules on rights, it's pretty close to morality. I think what upsets people about "legislating from the bench" is things like at least 25 states pass laws or constitutional amendments banning some form of homosexual marriage [1], which clearly reflects a substantial will-of-the-people, and the Supreme Court overrules the expressed will of the people and says it's unconstitutional. So now these people, have to live in a society that legally tolerates something they think is wrong and/or harmful to society long-term. Regardless of your view of whether the Court was "right," you can certainly see why people would be upset with this. No matter what the Court rules, someone is going to be unhappy, but given that homosexuals are 3% of the population and are driving the other 97% (which had expressed their desires through the democratic process), you can see the problem. (I think this is why conservative Christians are voting for Trump in large numbers, despite the fact that many of them think he is not a good candidate. They are voting for a Supreme Court nominator, not a government leader. As a conservative Christian myself, I think this is foolish, but there it is.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitut...
trendia 10y ago
The only "morality" the Chinese government cares about is whatever leads to the furtherance of those in power
girzel 10y ago
The problem with this happening in China is that, given the rampant corruption, authoritarianism, lack and transparency and lack of rule of law in China, the system is pretty much guaranteed to be expressed in the worst possible way: used for population control and political repression, and gamed by those in power for their own benefit. Something really bad is happening in China. There's been talk for a few years about abolishing the hukou system of housing registration, which would appear to be a step towards liberalization, but at the same time the government seems to be running full tilt in the other direction, developing new systems for control. I just left China after fifteen years, and when I moved out of my apartment in central Beijing, an Indian guy was considering moving in after me. The local police station told my landlord, "no Indians". Later they told her, "no one without a Beijing hukou can live there", which is pretty staggering if true, as the majority of Beijing residents don't have Beijing hukou. I don't know what's going on, but levels of paranoia in the higher reaches of power are spiking, big time.
- idra 10y ago
  > The problem with this happening in China is that, given the rampant corruption, authoritarianism, lack and transparency and lack of rule of law in China, the system is pretty much guaranteed to be expressed in the worst possible way: used for population control and political repression, and gamed by those in power for their own benefit. Well said. This can be said about pretty much any "system" being introduced in China.
echevil 10y ago
You're worrying too much. A big differerence in China is that people will take this kind of things much less seriously. Even the impact of credit scores are close to zero.

hilop 10y ago

What does church have to do with this? We can throw people in jail for "corruption"

ctrlalt_g 10y ago
In the U.S., the courts can't decide whether something is moral or immoral. If we throw people in jail for corruption, it won't be because they were found guilty of having a bad moral character. It will be because of an illegal conflict of interest or anticompetitive practices or something like that. That's what a separation of church and state means in this context.
- prewett 10y ago
  The US court sure comes close to deciding moral issues, if not actually. Abortion: some people say killing babies is wrong and should be illegal; other people say a woman has the right to kill* her baby if it hasn't been born yet. Homosexual marriage: some people say it is wrong and should be illegal; others say it is right and should be legal. So if I think homosexual marriage is wrong, the court requires that the society I live in treat it as okay, which leaves many people feeling like the court is legislating morality. (Of course, the opposite is true, too) Furthermore, the court pretty much has to rule on things like this. So it's a pretty fine line. * I freely admit to being biased on this issue, but the fetus has a heart-beat at 3 weeks; it's hard to say it's not living being. And if it's living, aborting/terminating it is technically killing it.
  - rblatz 10y ago
    Can it survive on its own outside the mother's body? Or implanted into another mothers body? If not how alive is it? But more importantly how can you enforce upon a woman the sacrifice to her body and self to carry this fetus to term? Does she not have autonomy and control of her own body?
  - grzm 10y ago
    I think I see what you're saying, and I agree that laws and morality are similar. That said, I do think they can be meaningfully distinguished. Edit: I understand you make this distinction as well. The duty of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law. The creation of the law is the job of the legislative branch. It seems to me that while people may agree or object to laws on moral grounds, the judicial branch is focussed on the application of the law itself, not the moral aspects of it. As the legislature creates the law, one could argue that they're more directly responsible for encoding morality into the law. Though some might think in some cases the judicial branch abuses it's interpretive duty by "legislating from the bench". What do you think? Edit: I suspect we're actually quite close to agreeing.
    - prewett 10y ago
      I think we pretty much agree. Rights and morality are pretty closely related, so when the court rules on rights, it's pretty close to morality. I think what upsets people about "legislating from the bench" is things like at least 25 states pass laws or constitutional amendments banning some form of homosexual marriage [1], which clearly reflects a substantial will-of-the-people, and the Supreme Court overrules the expressed will of the people and says it's unconstitutional. So now these people, have to live in a society that legally tolerates something they think is wrong and/or harmful to society long-term. Regardless of your view of whether the Court was "right," you can certainly see why people would be upset with this. No matter what the Court rules, someone is going to be unhappy, but given that homosexuals are 3% of the population and are driving the other 97% (which had expressed their desires through the democratic process), you can see the problem. (I think this is why conservative Christians are voting for Trump in large numbers, despite the fact that many of them think he is not a good candidate. They are voting for a Supreme Court nominator, not a government leader. As a conservative Christian myself, I think this is foolish, but there it is.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitut...

trendia 10y ago

The only "morality" the Chinese government cares about is whatever leads to the furtherance of those in power

girzel 10y ago

The problem with this happening in China is that, given the rampant corruption, authoritarianism, lack and transparency and lack of rule of law in China, the system is pretty much guaranteed to be expressed in the worst possible way: used for population control and political repression, and gamed by those in power for their own benefit. Something really bad is happening in China. There's been talk for a few years about abolishing the hukou system of housing registration, which would appear to be a step towards liberalization, but at the same time the government seems to be running full tilt in the other direction, developing new systems for control. I just left China after fifteen years, and when I moved out of my apartment in central Beijing, an Indian guy was considering moving in after me. The local police station told my landlord, "no Indians". Later they told her, "no one without a Beijing hukou can live there", which is pretty staggering if true, as the majority of Beijing residents don't have Beijing hukou. I don't know what's going on, but levels of paranoia in the higher reaches of power are spiking, big time.

idra 10y ago
> The problem with this happening in China is that, given the rampant corruption, authoritarianism, lack and transparency and lack of rule of law in China, the system is pretty much guaranteed to be expressed in the worst possible way: used for population control and political repression, and gamed by those in power for their own benefit. Well said. This can be said about pretty much any "system" being introduced in China.

echevil 10y ago

You're worrying too much. A big differerence in China is that people will take this kind of things much less seriously. Even the impact of credit scores are close to zero.