Well! Social Credit Scores are Coming to Our Shores!

EDITOR’S NOTE: While guest posts have been common on The Roots of Liberty’s website, this is the first (of hopefully many) on Substack. Enjoy! — Peter V.

I wonder whether it's worth pointing out that societal progress has nearly always come from people who would have had abysmal "Social Credit Scores" for their time. Surely any important societal progress comes to us that way.

Progress is many things, but one of those things is: change. Good change, in fact. Bad change, it shouldn’t need to be said, is the opposite of progress. Charlie Manson brought about change. Few would try to argue that it was “progress,” though.

Progress is, by definition, an expression of disapproval of, or discontent with, the Established Order, in favor of what the one making changes thinks, again by definition, would be a superior alternative. An alternative where his idea of "progress" will take hold throughout the land.

Real progress says unambiguously that the current situation is lacking, or inadequate, or inferior, or just plain bad. Someone invented the wheel to fix the unacceptable situation in which there were no wheels.

This is true of all inventions; of all laws, all new organizations, all rules changes, all things that come about because the people doing them think they’ll make things better. Or: progress.

It’s true of progress of any and all kinds. In fact, the human condition has, as a fundamental component, the desire to improve its current situation. You could be Elon Musk, with enough money to buy Mars, and you’d still want to improve your condition.

Now, how many Established Orders can you think of, that are just fine with being replaced by a newer, shinier, fresher thing, whatever it may be? Let's all think back for a moment to how thrilled the manufacturers of buggy whips were when automobiles arrived and started to grow in popularity.

Remember how delighted and thrilled you were when your girlfriend met the rich, handsome guy and decided that replacing you with him would represent… progress? I do.

It's worth pointing out that the American political Left is fond of pretending that they're all about change… and progress. And: Hope and Change. Both are frequently paired in the Left’s rhetoric. Appropriately too. “Hope” is unrealized yearning, while "change" is worthless -- or worse -- unless it's good change. That is obvious, right?

So, when you say, “Hope and change,” it sounds as if you’ve said a whole lot – it sounds as if you’ve said” “real progress!” -- while actually you’ve said nothing. You can tell anyone anything you want, or anything you think they want to hear, when they ask you what you mean by “hope and change.”

Furthermore, I think we all have at least a basic understanding of what the Left really means by "change." It's simple: (1) Change the people in power, (2) in favor of the Left, then (3) they'll change the systems, laws and institutions so that (4) only they will have power from then on, and (5) there'll be no further need for any of your silly notions of "change." Or “hope.”

A Social Credit Scoring system would represent big change. But, would it be good change? Would a Social Credit Scoring system be real progress?

Short answer: No. Again, by definition.

If the government is a bad one, then any Social Credit Scoring system it controls will assign the lowest possible Score to anyone trying to bring about positive change, aka: good government… or: real progress.

Imagine with me, if you will, the Social Credit Score that the abolitionists would have had in the era of slavery in America. What Social Credit Score would Jesus have had? How about Mahatma Gandhi? Martin Luther King, Jr.? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov?

The former Soviet Union had a Social Credit Scoring system, but it was never called that. It was a complex system of institutions, laws, processes and rules, that grew organically and inevitably in the Socialist system established after the coup d’état of 1917. It operated just like a Social Credit Scoring system. It was specifically designed to prevent changes to the governmental system of the country. It was designed to prevent progress.

If you found yourself on the wrong side of the Soviet system, you couldn’t really do anything that other citizens were doing. Your life often consisted of hunkering down in your dwelling, dependent on sympathetic friends to bring you food and other staples secretly. And you spent your nights dreading the knock on the door that signaled that you’d never see your loved ones again. You often ended up prematurely… dead.

Finally, of course, the Social Credit Scoring system being contemplated around the western world now, is a concoction of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It’s really, though, nothing more than the computerization of the Social Credit Scoring system they’ve had in place there since they seized power all the way back in 1948-’49. The very same type of system that the Soviets developed to keep their people in line. Only now with high tech and algorithms. How well such algorithms work in our lives now, am I right?

Do you think the CCP thought this obscenity up in order to give regime opponents a brandy-new, shiny tool with which to threaten their power? Is China governed by a good government? By a good system? No, no and clearly no.

 A Social Credit Scoring system is purposefully designed to solidify the current regime’s power. Real progress alwaysruns into serious resistance, significant obstacles. It’d be truly difficult to imagine a greater obstacle in the path of progress than a Social Credit Scoring system. Which is why, of course, the Chinese government calls it progressive.

Worse, such an abominable system would be a highly effective tool to oppress the people. As it is already in China – and will be right here in the west! -- when it’s fully implemented. Some petty martinet in the government doesn’t like you? No problem! Let’s assign you a nice low Social Credit Score, and ruin your life and/or your ability to make a living, along with your family’s future!

No sane civilization ever would even consider allowing such a thing in their midst.