US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes • Hacker News Board

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#161

Post by baryphonic » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:53 PM UTC

gottorf wrote: post #103

wanderingmind wrote: post #101

As an aside, For all those who talk about corruption and getting money out of politics I suggest reading Federalist 10 by Madison. Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another.

> Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another. Absolutely! Any form of government that depends on an unbroken line of "good people" in power will fail, and fail much sooner than anybody thinks. Modern China has already reached the end of their…

Just for reference, the "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" line comes from Federalist 51, also by Madison.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#162

Post by baryphonic » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

wanderingmind wrote: post #101

As an aside, For all those who talk about corruption and getting money out of politics I suggest reading Federalist 10 by Madison. Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another.

Madison elaborates also on this theme in Federalist 51, but with separation of powers rather than federalism & factions.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#163

Post by mason55 » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #141

wanderingmind wrote: post #101

As an aside, For all those who talk about corruption and getting money out of politics I suggest reading Federalist 10 by Madison. Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another.

> The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances I don't think this viewpoint can be supported empirically. The US government has much stronger checks and balances than most parliamentary systems where the prime minister is elected by the parliament. This means that there's no split possible between the executive and legislative branch. I think the result of this in the US is that…

> The US government has much stronger checks and balances than most parliamentary systems where the prime minister is elected by the parliament. This means that there's no split possible between the executive and legislative branch. I think the result of this in the US is that the government tends to deadlock, and has a lot of difficulty compromising, which leads to dissatisfaction and instability. Conflicts heighten without compromise or resolution for decades until they reach a breaking point. In a parliamentary system, the need to build a governing coalition can result in greater incentives to compromise.

Yeah, if I understand, the original idea of the checks & balances in the US was that each branch of government would be fighting to become the most powerful and so they all had ways to stop each other. But it wasn't really designed to deal with the idea that political parties would grow in power enough to supersede the branches of government as the top-level entities fighting for power.

This idea that you'd be able to form a large enough coalition across Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency that you could get all three branches to work together wasn't really considered back then. With more localized politics that was basically impossible and so the individual branches were fighting for power.

Our form of government should be updated to reflect the reality of more powerful political parties.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#164

Post by hash872 » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

iteria wrote: post #139

hash872 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another Completely American myopic POV. Stable, healthy democracies that are unicameral parliamentary systems include Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Portugal, and Sweden. (Most of those countries don't have strong judicial review e…

Look at all those nations you listed that are very homogeneous. I want a nation with significant culture tradition differences listed that is like that. American exceptionalist is mostly BS but we do have some ways that we are very unique as a nation and that is how many different kinds of major cultures we have hanging out in US. People handwave the US as all the same but that is very much not the case. Even for as…

>nothing is gonna change that living in Montana is nothing like living in Florida

The problem with this argument is that Montana and Florida vote for the same political party, and then their representatives generally vote the same way once in Congress

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#165

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:55 PM UTC

rkangel wrote: post #23

dmurray wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stockbroking, cinema, accountancy, law, life insurance, financial planning, nuclear power, real estate, medicine, advertising, media...[0][1] Self-regulation (especially at the industry level rather than delegating to individual companies) doesn't seem completely broken. Actually it can work quite well. You keep some oversight, and reserve the right for the state regulator to step in if the SRO goes bad. The people w…

An industry regulating itself is different from an organisation regulating itself. Self regulation of the industry is common as you say. It tends to involve one central body enforcing the standards on the members, and acting as a central point for agreement of the standards. This is not the case with the Aviation regulation. The FAA is the regulator, and has delegated the testing to the people it is meant to be regul…

[deleted]

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#166

Post by f1shy » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:56 PM UTC

rkangel wrote: post #23

dmurray wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stockbroking, cinema, accountancy, law, life insurance, financial planning, nuclear power, real estate, medicine, advertising, media...[0][1] Self-regulation (especially at the industry level rather than delegating to individual companies) doesn't seem completely broken. Actually it can work quite well. You keep some oversight, and reserve the right for the state regulator to step in if the SRO goes bad. The people w…

An industry regulating itself is different from an organisation regulating itself. Self regulation of the industry is common as you say. It tends to involve one central body enforcing the standards on the members, and acting as a central point for agreement of the standards. This is not the case with the Aviation regulation. The FAA is the regulator, and has delegated the testing to the people it is meant to be regul…

That wasnot the OP question

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#167

Post by baryphonic » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 8:58 PM UTC

returningfory2 wrote: post #152

notJim wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances I don't think this viewpoint can be supported empirically. The US government has much stronger checks and balances than most parliamentary systems where the prime minister is elected by the parliament. This means that there's no split possible between the executive and legislative branch. I think the result of this in the US is that…

> In practice, parties tend to govern by attempting to control the supreme court, because there's no possible way to pass their agendas due to our vaunted checks and balances. I agree that the the Supreme Court is more important because of the inability of Congress to pass regular legislation. However I don't think the root cause is "checks and balances". I think the root cause is the (unconstitutional) Senate filibu…

How is the filibuster unconstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives each House the power to select its own rules, and the Senate is never "dissolved" like the House of Representatives is, so its rules carry on.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#168

Post by nomel » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 9:03 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #111

gottorf wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another. Absolutely! Any form of government that depends on an unbroken line of "good people" in power will fail, and fail much sooner than anybody thinks. Modern China has already reached the end of their…

> And government should only have as much power as you think the worst possible people in charge should have. This immediately falls apart, by that logic we should literally have no government or society to speak of. "Only as much power as you think the worst possible person should have" would mean literally no power - there isn't a single decision in my life I would pass off to the worst person I could think of. Wha…

Many good answers, but to put it simply, ideally you create a system that assumes abuse, which will then make abuse difficult or obvious. If you make any positive assumptions about someone in power, then they will, eventually, be used against you.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#169

Post by Consultant32452 » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 9:05 PM UTC

wanderingmind wrote: post #101

As an aside, For all those who talk about corruption and getting money out of politics I suggest reading Federalist 10 by Madison. Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another.

The form of government is irrelevant compared to the culture that is being governed.

Japanese cities are incredible because the Japanese culture demands safety, cleanliness and beauty. You could make just about any change to the form of government you want and the result will be the same.

Re: US regulator considers stripping Boeing's right to self-inspect planes

#170

Post by gottorf » Fri, Jan 12, 2024, 9:06 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #131

wanderingmind wrote: post #101

As an aside, For all those who talk about corruption and getting money out of politics I suggest reading Federalist 10 by Madison. Its a deep analysis of a need for a republican democracy. Any government that depends on human virtuousness will fail. The only way to have a sustainable government is to have strong checks and balances and putting multiple factions with different interests against one another.

While the Federalist Papers are great works, I don't agree with taking them as enlightened guidance from on high. They were theorizing. No one of them really knew how a modern democracy/republic would actually work in practice. Remember, the authors of the constitution (large overlap) stated on the record that they expected they got a lot of it wrong, and expected large swathes of it to be amended and replaced once a…

> The founders themselves would have told the modern Supreme Court that it's bonkers.

> expected large swathes of it to be amended and replaced

Would they have? There exists a mechanism to amend the Constitution, and it seems reasonable to me that the Supreme Court would insist on textual originalism until the text is amended through that legal process.