Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

on.ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 367 posts

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

#211

Post by mulmen »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #158
tw04 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. What you're describing is anarchy. Not at all. Suppose the worst possible person is in the prosecutor's office.…

There is another failure mode. The prosecutor can refuse to prosecute a guilty party. This can happen for several reasons. 1) corruption, don’t prosecute your friends. 2) ideology, the law or punishment are “unfair” or the defendant is “misunderstood” or “disadvantaged” according to the prosecutor. 3) politics, to advance their political careers prosecutors want an unblemished record of successful convictions.

It is good that our system biases toward avoiding wrongful conviction but there’s no check that forces a party to “do their job.”

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

#212

Post by InTheArena »

hash872 wrote: post #133
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 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…

Comparing tiny countries at the edge of Europe and the edge of the world with the the US as super-power is a weakness.

Every country has adopted American Republicanism with a clearly defined and written constitution that has some form of separation of powers. None of these, for example, allow the PM to act as an absolute dictator without some form of emergency. The difference is simply in whether the president has an independent mandate from the parliament or not.

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

#213

Post by akira2501 »

autoexec wrote: post #209
akira2501 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should literally have no government or society to speak of I don't think society is dependent on government. > would mean literally no power Literally no power ensconced in the hands of a _single individual_, I think was the point.

> I don't think society is dependent on government. Is that a hypothetical or are there large and successful societies around today that don't have one (or a group by some other name fulfilling the same function)?

You'd have to more thoroughly define "successful." You'd also have to explain why you think the lack of one would prove any point.

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

#215

Post by huytersd »

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…

China hasn’t reached it yet but once Xi is out they have to hope they can find another benevolent king or the entire system is going to come crashing down.

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

#216

Post by verve_rat »

brightball wrote: post #125
tw04 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> there isn't a single decision in my life I would pass off to the worst person I could think of This is actually the point though. You shouldn't have to give power to an individual. If you're going to, you should give that power to a group of individuals who have to agree for the thing to move forward. And then have checks on that group as well. I live in South Carolina and one of the things I like about how this st…

Sounds like South Carolina follows a Westminster style government. Look at the UK, NZ, AU governments (and I assume Canada, don't know for sure): A King, or Governor-General, with the theoretical power to override parliament. A Head of State which can issue decrees and makes important decisions "on the advice of the Prime Minster".

Basically a figure head and a bunch of legal fictions wrapped up in the concept of "The Crown". But the real power lies with the PM and their Cabinet. But the party in charge can change the PM whenever they want, and if it ever got bad enough Parliament can change the party in charge without waiting for an election.

The PM is responsible to the Cabinet and to their party and to the rest of Parliament. It is all one big mess of ambitious people pointing guns at each other, constantly evaluating their position ahead of the next election.

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

#217

Post by mulmen »

pi-e-sigma wrote: post #200
vkou wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you like to tell us how the NYSE is corrupt? Or do they just get tarred with 'Well, they work in finance, of course they are all crooks' brush?

Just google what they do when they don't like some trades

The standard for corruption is higher than “I don’t like your decision.”

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

#218

Post by sircastor »

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…

And it's important to say that generally you want and industry to regulate itself. This prevents the regulation becoming a burden on the people, and maintains the threat that if the industry doesn't regulate itself then the government (the people) will regulate it. No industry wants oversight, so they do their best to stay in the lines.

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

#219

Post by mulmen »

nerpderp82 wrote: post #31
rkangel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Self regulation would mean that the org should face much stiffer penalties for failing in its regulation related duties. The increased agency needs to also come with increased responsibility. Something like notaries, guilds or unions that can speak the truth without retribution ... No, we need independent regulation. We don't have the societal norms to pull off self regulation.

> Self regulation would mean that the org should face much stiffer penalties for failing in its regulation related duties.

Why? How does this incentivize effective self-regulation?

> No, we need independent regulation. We don't have the societal norms to pull off self regulation.

We do though. This thread even points them out.

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

#220

Post by jackcosgrove »

ethbr1 wrote: post #173
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…

I'd argue that the US biparty system tends to have fewer checks and balances than a parliamentary system. In many ways, it's winner take all. President + 50%+1 in the lower legislature + 50%+1 in the upper legislature = a huge amount of power. Historically, I think it's been exceedingly rare to have as finely balanced government as recent times have featured. And to me, the Supreme Court is less about the people curr…

In recent times the Supreme Court has also been staffed by graduates of only a handful of law schools. I think that, more than a dedication to the rule of law, is what sets them apart from the rest of the country. Given the complexities of harmonizing a large body of law that's centuries old, I'm not sure there's a better way. But I think we should always remember that the Supreme Court is by far the least representative and least democratic branch of government.
Post reply on HN