301–310 of 367 posts
My question would be, what bonehead gave manufacturers [edited] the right to self-inspect planes in the first place without having their "fox guarding the henhouse" alarms go off? We're lucky that our aircraft safety record has stayed as good as it has for this long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Free markets subvert toxic heirarchies and inefficient industries But a free market cannot exist in the absence of regulation, and regulation is a form of government.
> a free market cannot exist in the absence of regulation As you are using the term "regulation" (see below), this is false. A free market is in fact exactly what you do get in the absence of government regulation: all transactions are voluntary. Only governments can force people to engage in market transactions they don't want to engage in, or prevent them from engaging in market transactions they do want to engage…
Somewhere down the line, Boeing probably decided not to remove the plug to fit the interiors and instead just load them through the main bigger openings only. They probably did not document/log this change in practice and think through implications and probably did not update instructions to Spirit to secure the plug door going forward (or maybe they did but Spirit didn't pay attention)
Hence we have many planes with Spirit assuming Boeing will secure it as per the previous practice and Boeing not securing it because they didn't remove it while fitting out.
Now the obvious question is if Boeing or Spirit has deviated from documented production practice in this area, have they deviated in other areas and hence the entire production process of max lines will probably need to be re-audited
My question would be, what bonehead gave manufacturers [edited] the right to self-inspect planes in the first place without having their "fox guarding the henhouse" alarms go off? We're lucky that our aircraft safety record has stayed as good as it has for this long.
Airplane manufacturers--which means Boeing--not airlines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-regulatory bodies are usually centralized and separate from any individual corporation. They also tend to answer directly to a government agency and cannot be disciplined by a corporation. While there can still be issues such as a strong revolving door and potential indirect pressure to be nice to the regulated entities, it’s not as terrible as what Boeing and other airplane manufacturers get to do (inspect them…
Historically, the fact that lives of the public are clearly on the line was part of the argument for allowing partial delegation of safety oversight. The idea has been that any engineer/manager making these decisions will be regularly flying themselves/loved ones, so is going to be suitably cautious. This differed from the situation in coal mines for example, where the miners exposed to the risk were socially/cultura…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a free market cannot exist in the absence of regulation As you are using the term "regulation" (see below), this is false. A free market is in fact exactly what you do get in the absence of government regulation: all transactions are voluntary. Only governments can force people to engage in market transactions they don't want to engage in, or prevent them from engaging in market transactions they do want to engage…
A gun can also force people to participate in transactions they don't want to engage in.
I don't think laws against crime were the sort of regulation of markets that the post I responded to was talking about. But in any case, if the existence of crime is sufficient to make markets not free, then free markets don't exist with government any more than they would without it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. The problem in the…
> In the intended frameworks the deadlocks were fully intentional. If you couldn't reach widespread consensus then you couldn't do something at the federal level If gridlock was intended, what's the purpose of the formal simple majority requirement to pass laws? If gridlock was always to be the main state when disagreement existed, the "Nay" vote seems superfluous, which is an absurd result IMO.
It isn't a simple majority. You need both houses of Congress (which were originally representing separate interests) and the signature of the President, or you need two thirds in both the House and Senate to override a veto.
In theory you could require unanimity, but then you could never pass anything, even if it had 95% support. The point isn't to prevent all laws, it's to require the approval of enough distinct interests that controversial issues are easier to address at a different level of government, and each of their controversial solutions only apply in an area where that idea has local support, while everyone has freedom of movement in the event that they disagree with the local majority enough to vote with their feet.
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.
Edit: can you imagine what it would be like though if the US had a dual presidential system and Trump and Obama were both in power at the same time? Somehow I think it would be more dysfunctional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
But this is intended as one of the checks and balances. If the legislature passes an unjust law or one with unjust applications, the prosecutor can exercise their discretion and not enforce it, acting as a check on the tyranny of the majority.
You could remove prosecutorial discretion and require prosecutors to proceed against anyone someone wants to file charges against (let the judge and jury sort it out), but now you're making a trade off against something else.
Notice that this applies to any of the rest of it. Congress could refuse to pass a law that makes sense because their cronies benefit from the status quo etc. But the concern here is that the government has an unprecedented capacity to do harm because it exercises a monopoly on violence. If the prosecutor's buddy is a serial killer, you can still exercise your right to self-defense, or avoid being alone in public. If the prosecutor's buddy is allowing your company to not pay you for hours worked, you can sue them yourself, or quit. All while lobbying the government to replace the prosecutor. If you're falsely imprisoned by the government, what are you supposed to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the intended frameworks the deadlocks were fully intentional. If you couldn't reach widespread consensus then you couldn't do something at the federal level If gridlock was intended, what's the purpose of the formal simple majority requirement to pass laws? If gridlock was always to be the main state when disagreement existed, the "Nay" vote seems superfluous, which is an absurd result IMO.
> If gridlock was intended, what's the purpose of the formal simple majority requirement to pass laws? It isn't a simple majority. You need both houses of Congress (which were originally representing separate interests) and the signature of the President, or you need two thirds in both the House and Senate to override a veto. In theory you could require unanimity, but then you could never pass anything, even if it ha…
The simple majority I'm referring to is about both houses of Congress in isolation. In the House of Representatives you need 218 out of 435 reps, while in the Senate it's 51 of 100. That's what I meant.
Either the rules of Congress are superfluous (by requiring only a simple majority in each house to pass a law despite the existence of the fillibuster/gridlock), or the fillibuster/gridlock is an obstructionist, absurd, and potentially unconstituional tactic.