One of the popular ideas with the left right now is to use things like mass surveillance, social credit scores and digital currencies to "withhold subsidies" from people instead of sending them to jail when they commit crimes or engage in wrongthink. I think there's a lot of problems with this idea that haven't been discussed and so I wanted to post it somewhere on the internet. First, are subsidies going to be the only way to get certain things? Because if the subsidies aren't the only way to get certain things, you have basically created two legal systems: one for people who actually need the subsidies and another for people who don't need the subsidies. As such, you will either still need jails for rich (or more likely, white) people who engage in wrongthink but can use a completely different criminal justice system to punish people who actually need the subsidies to live. There are a lot of potential problems with doing this, notwithstanding the fact that having two different criminal justice systems doesn't mesh with basic concepts of equality under the law. Second, even if people did successfully institute such a system, I am not sure that it really makes sense on its face. Consider for example, the withholding of a food subsidy: if the subsidy is the only way to get food, now the punishment for committing a crime is starvation? Such a thing is way harsher than existing punishment systems. But let's say that the subsidy being withheld doesn't apply to things like food, only to your ability to buy things like consumer items. So you are going to cut someone's consumer item subsidy as a punishment for them stealing consumer items. Yet the entire problem in the first place was that they were getting consumer items they could not get normally, so the idea that pulling their funds for such things will be a punishment when they are already engaged in the practice of stealing those things seems unlikely to work out. Supposedly in China these days they will cut your ability to use public transportation or enter certain buildings if you do something that the authorities don't like. I don't know what the specifics of this system are or what the long term ramifications are supposed to be but if that impacts someone's ability to get to their job etc., it sounds pretty counter-productive. Also, are they going to do anything besides sit there and stew? It seems unlikely that they will come to a conclusion besides hating you. I can't imagine that encouraging this as a regular event will have positive outcomes.
It sounds like government would take money from people (in the form of taxes) and then not give it back if for any reason it is not happy with what that person is doing. It's kind of like a fine, but would go far beyond that. And probably wouldn't be subject to the same due process and legal protections. Usually when you are trying to get money from the government, you do not have the same rights to that money as when government is taking an amount of money away from you in a specific special situation. This seems to be about more control. Take your money first and then decide whether you can get it back. Anyone who has any familiarity with the concept of "civil liberties" knows could very easily end up a complete nightmare.
In China, in many areas, the only way you are able to pay to get on a subway or train is with a mobile phone. It has become more common for Chinese to pay using their phone rather than using a card or currency. The account on the phone is tied to that person's identity. The payments are conveniently done by using the phone's camera to take a picture of a digital code. There are laws that can punish you if you try to set up or use an account tied to someone else's identity. Rudimentary facial recognition algorithms connected to security cameras in public places have become commonplace. This makes it much easier for the police force to identify possible "crimes". Out of a thousand faces that go by the camera, the computer might tag one of those faces that do not seem to match the identity connected to the account that was used to make a payment, and then it is possible a human will look at it. There are probably ways around this, but it results in a big inconvenience, and there is always a small risk of getting caught. If you are on a ban list, there is no way for you to pay to get on that subway or train. Unless someone else paid for you, but that could be very inconvenient and not practical. That person might have to come with you if there are transfers and another ticket has to be separately paid. Most people in China do not own cars, so that can make things very difficult for the majority of the population in the cities to be able to get around if they cannot use the subway or trains. Part of the reason they do not own cars has to do with average people having lower incomes, and the other reason is that all the bigger cities are designed for people without cars and have good transportation systems. Many cities in China are also crowded and it could be too difficult to get around by car. Even many people in the more prosperous half of the middle class who own a car often choose to travel by subway or train half the time because it is easier, the roads can be very congested. Currently, China has only just begun experimenting with this social credit score system over the last few years, but has plans to expand it. The majority of the Chinese population is not worried, or supports it. But most of the Chinese population has been trained to give their unquestioning trust to the government. From what I understand, mostly the system has only been used against individuals who deserve it. But of course such a system could very easily be abused and turned into a political weapon. The U.S. is sort of heading down this road too, in a way. 21 states will suspend your driver's license if you fall behind on student debt. It's not only a mere inconvenience to lose your licence, it's basically severing your access to your main source of financial support and could send you spiralling down in debts for a long time.
republican are creating laws where you can sue doctors for what they do to others, even if others were not harmed and wanted them to do it it's a weird world
most doctors are adults if a doctor gives his patient an abortion as she requests, some Republican have passed laws to allow anyone to sue the doctor, not just the patient
Thats dumb. Unfortunately, in our current political atmosphere, many people are stuck in the same boat I am. I can vote for someone who wants to protect gun rights who also wants to restrict abortions, or I can vote for someone who wants to protect abortion rights and ban guns. There was literally not a single third option in any of the races on my last ballot. I'd prefer to restrict neither, but you can prolly guess which way I went...
Wow, FreshAir! I know you have an infamous reputation for postings things on the first page to derail a thread discussion off topic, but this has to be a record, even for you! I wonder, do you do this on purpose?
I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just pointing out you have a bad habit of saying things to derail discussions off topic. And this thread is one of the more outrageous examples of that. You always seem to do it on the first page too.
stay on topic.... we were talking about ways to punish without jailing people.... anything to add or are you trying to derail the tread
Okay, I think I'm beginning to see your perspective on this. I had a very different take on the opening post. It seemed to me that Wulfschilde (the opening poster) mainly wanted to talk about and criticize the type of system that China is using. I think, FreshAir, you may have misinterpreted the intent of the original poster. (Like maybe you didn't bother reading the full post)
