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

321–330 of 367 posts

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

#321

Post by ethbr1 »

jackcosgrove wrote: post #220
ethbr1 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 representa…

It's also the only branch of government that, at least as designed, cannot originate policy.

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

#322

Post by AnthonyMouse »

int_19h wrote: post #282
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the US is that the government tends to deadlock This is a feature. In a unitary state, it would be suicide. But in a federation, national disagreement prompts gridlock which automatically devolves the question.

It doesn't, though. It just means that whatever current arrangement exists on federal level (which is not necessarily devolution!) remains in force.

This was one of the biggest defects in the original constitutional framework. They made it hard to pass laws, which was by design, but then used the same procedure to repeal them. If the goal is for federal laws to reflect general consensus, they should be easier to repeal than to pass.

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

#323

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mason55 wrote: post #163
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…

> 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…

The flaw is actually in the use of first past the post voting, which causes more powerful political parties, because the math induces a two party system.

Use score voting or approval voting and you'll have more parties that each have less power.

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

#324

Post by refurb »

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…

I mean, why not go full bore and do the Singaporean system? An effective dictatorship? It's a great example of a stable, healthy system (until it isn't).

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

#325

Post by refurb »

jltsiren wrote: post #239
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.

Checks and balances will fail without virtue. There are plenty of examples of that around the world. Checks and balances are fundamentally nothing more than words on a paper. They cannot be stronger than the elites' belief in their legitimacy.

That's true to an extent, but you're viewing it in too black and white a way.

A system with checks and balances can be subverted, but it's still better than a system without them.

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

#326

Post by nerpderp82 »

mulmen wrote: post #219
nerpderp82 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because they have autonomy. By having the regulators embedded, they can continually tell them how to improve. The regulation isn't to punish, but to conform and exceed to the specifications.

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

#327

Post by AnthonyMouse »

not2b wrote: post #129
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…

"people in charge" doesn't just include elected officials, it also includes heads of corporations. Checks and balances has to apply to them as well, meaning that regulation is necessary.

This goes both ways. The merchant class is one of the checks and balances on the government because it serves as a separate power base that should find it in its own interest to oppose government misconduct.

One of the most important things for checks and balances to do is ensure the separation of commerce and state. Prevent the merger of state and corporate power.

So they must restrain the government from inhibiting competition at the behest of crony incumbent corporations. Which requires you to restrict what kinds of regulation the government can impose, when that regulation impairs competition or otherwise advantages crony corporations.

The last thing you want is to give a government official the power to do a corporation's bidding.

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

#328

Post by p1esk »

gretch wrote: post #317
p1esk wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, if Trump is so bad, why do you think half of the country will vote for him?

Those people have real problems that I am sympathetic to. For example, being left behind economically. Problems at the border. etc. Trump speaks to these problems and the democratic party does not fix these problems. The reason Trump is popular is because he is willing to lie and make false promises in order to gain support. Any one can do this, you just have to have no moral boundaries and some charisma. For example…

he is willing to lie and make false promises in order to gain support

This describes pretty much every politician who ever had to be democratically elected. Has any other American president behaved differently?

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

#329

Post by defrost »

p1esk wrote: post #328
gretch wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those people have real problems that I am sympathetic to. For example, being left behind economically. Problems at the border. etc. Trump speaks to these problems and the democratic party does not fix these problems. The reason Trump is popular is because he is willing to lie and make false promises in order to gain support. Any one can do this, you just have to have no moral boundaries and some charisma. For example…

he is willing to lie and make false promises in order to gain support This describes pretty much every politician who ever had to be democratically elected. Has any other American president behaved differently?

Just those that fell short of actively encouraging and organising attempted overthrows of congress to alter the outcome of the vote.

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

#330

Post by Nevermark »

not2b wrote: post #129
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…

"people in charge" doesn't just include elected officials, it also includes heads of corporations. Checks and balances has to apply to them as well, meaning that regulation is necessary.

And it should apply to parties.

Especially in systems like the US where single party rule is actually attainable.

Political parties work hard to centralize and consolidate power across disparate voting districts, pushing and incentivizing their elected members to be more loyal to their party than to their districts.

Then the party as a coordinated whole just works for itself.

The whole point of having diverse representatives from diverse districts gets nullified.

National level seat limits, and cross state party limits for local elections, would eliminate any chance of single party rule and evaporate the dysfunction that spreads from seeking and holding that crown.

Post reply on HN