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

241–250 of 367 posts

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

#241

Post by ianburrell »

pi-e-sigma wrote: post #195
ianburrell wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important difference isn't between monarchy or republic, but how the executive is chosen. Parliamentary democracies elect the prime minister. Presidential democracies have separate executive. For example, Ireland is parliamentary republic; the president is only head of state, the prime minister has all the power.

That's not true. It varies by country, in some most power is hold by president, in some by premier, yet in some it's a mixture. But I don't know any country with a premier who is elected by the people. He is either selected by president or is the leader of the winning party. The executive can be chosen in various ways in a monarchy, too, because there are constitutional monarchies, too, where power of a monarch is li…

I was conusing; in parliamentary democracies, the parliament chooses the prime minister. There are hybrids like France with head-of-state President with lots of power; I can't tell how different from monarch "choosing" the prime minister.

We're not talking about absolute monarchies. For one thing, doesn't really matter how selects the government. It also doesn't really matter for absolute governments if power is inherited, inherited without acknowleding like North Korea, or says is President.

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

#242

Post by JellyBeanThief »

ajmurmann wrote: post #240
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…

I think a better way of phrasing that is "We cannot ask for better people. The right system makes the wrong people do the right thing". Russ Roberts sometimes says something like this and probably quoted someone else who I forgot

> The right system makes the wrong people do the right thing.

The words "right" and "wrong" in that sentence could make light of the Ardblair stones.

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

#243

Post by hash872 »

InTheArena wrote: post #212
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…

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…

The UK, Israel, Canada, and New Zealand all don't have written constitutions. 'None of these, for example, allow the PM to act as an absolute dictator' is not an example of the separation of powers, that's not what that phrase means at all

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

#244

Post by hangonhn »

blibble wrote: post #134
hangonhn wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't most modern constitutional monarchies just a veneer over a republican democracy anyways? The monarch wields no real power -- even if on paper they may still retain a great deal. The US system is notoriously bad to get working and really seems to only work for the US. Anywhere else we have tried it has ended with some kind of failure. However, it's reasonable to call the parliamentary systems like the UK republ…

> Aren't most modern constitutional monarchies just a veneer over a republican democracy anyways? it's the other way round, by the time of the rebellion absolute monarchy was long gone, the things the colonists didn't like were being passed by parliament the US then gave its presidency more power than George III would have dreamed of (in practice the presidency also seems to be prone to dynasties)

> it's the other way round, by the time of the rebellion absolute monarchy was long gone, the things the colonists didn't like were being passed by parliament

Wow. I feel foolish to have not come to that same conclusion until now despite knowing the same sets of facts as you. Great point.

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

#245

Post by PKop »

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…

>Any form of government that depends on an unbroken line of "good people" in power will fail

They all depend on this. There is no set-it-and-forget-it algorithm that you can put in place that self-perpetuates good government. There are "people" at every point along the chain of any government including those writing its laws, enforcing them, interpreting laws in court and in many bureaucratic institutions that may or may not ignore these rules or undermine them.

I think every system has a life-cycle like an organism, and some aspects of degradation and corruption are almost unavoidable in practice if not in principle.

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

#246

Post by wolverine876 »

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.

In addition are other essential solutions, which accept the reality that we all have virtue and evil inside us; we are all biologically the same as MLK and Stalin, as Lincoln and the slave-owners (and the slaves).

* Good people, which is people who are at that moment able to bring out the virtue in themselves, must act to promote virtue. If they sit on the sidelines, the results are predictable - other people won't do it.

* Good people can specifically develop and institutionalize systems - of government, society, culture - that bring out the good in people. It won't happen by accident, and plenty of bad people will do the opposite with intent.

If you think these things aren't possible, look at the incredible accomplishments of our ancestors, as we live in a world of freedom, peace, and prosperity absolutely unmatched in human history. What will we build for our descendents? Or will we throw away our inheritance?

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

#247

Post by junofan »

TylerE wrote: post #175
gottorf wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Here's Thomas Jefferson writing to James Madison in the early 1790s: "The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation…

I’d read Madison’s reply. Everyone knows Jefferson talked a lot of shit. The other founders were used to him. This is him getting emotional in Paris during the French Revolution. He thought the proto-Cult of Reason people were a bunch of crackpots and was worried the same thing was going to happen here.

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

#248

Post by verve_rat »

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…

25% of people living in NZ were not born in NZ. Add to that, NZ was founded out of an agreement between the British Crown and some, not all, of the Iwi (indigenous tribes) that already lived there.

Tell me that NZ is a homogeneous place with no cultural or political divisions that make working together tricky, go on.

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

#249

Post by pimlottc »

hash872 wrote: post #164
iteria wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don’t think that necessarily follows; you could argue that rather it’s because states are so different that the best (national) strategy is to have a broad uniform national platform that can appeal to the most voters. Our political (electorally and procedurally) system does not favor having a multitude of regionally distinct parties.

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

#250

Post by wolverine876 »

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…

> Modern China has already reached the end of their system, a scant 50 years after Mao Zedong.

Off topic, but are you implying that Mao was 'good people'? It seems that for the Communist 'dynasty', it fell apart immediately - that is, it never got anywhere. I'm not sure the Communist dynasty is any worse than the Qing or Ming or others before it, at least in that respect.

Post reply on HN