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

261–270 of 367 posts

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

#261

Post by codersfocus »

mulmen wrote: post #211
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #158

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…

Prosecutors are relatively new. It used to be the right of citizens to petition a grand jury to indict. A few states still allow it.

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

#262

Post by herczegzsolt »

returningfory2 wrote: post #202
baryphonic wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Legal scholars as in [1] can make the point better than me: > When considering the filibuster as a supermajority requirement for regular legislation, it is clearly unconstitutional. As a textual matter, the Constitution appoints the Vice President as the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, providing that they “shall have no Vote unless [the Senators] be equally divided.” This provision implies that the Senate must pass…

> to create a rule that all (...) require unanimous consent?

What you describe is pretty much what has happened and still is happening in Hungary.

The conclusion here is that even if the majority agrees that these rules are against the spirit of the democracy, there's nothing practical to do against them. So yeah, checks and balances are important to have in practice, not just in spirit.

When you're relying on self-imposed limitations, radicals will sooner or later take over and do whatever necessary to stay in power.

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

#263

Post by ajmurmann »

JellyBeanThief wrote: post #242
ajmurmann wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The statement isn't about what we want to get out of a system or government, but about how to approach shaping the system to create the desired outcome. You can fill in "good" and "bad" with your own subjective values and it continues to hold true. How you make the collective decision to agree on what's desired and what's not is a whole other can of worms.

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

#264

Post by alasdair_ »

throwup238 wrote: post #40
brink wrote: post #6

What other industry is allowed to inspect itself? It completely ruins the point of an inspection. It's like being the judge and jury in your own trial. I'm amazed this is a thing in the first place.

Clinical diagnostics, for example. Any time you take a blood test and send it off somewhere (Quest, LabCorp, etc.) to get assayed, chances are it goes to a self-regulated and self-inspected lab. These labs hire FDA certified "lab managers" as consultants or employees who are then responsible for all QA/QC procedures and certifying that the lab is capable of doing what they claim. They can be held criminally liable an…

Would the Theranos debacle have progressed as far as it did if the FDA inspected at the beginning?

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

#265

Post by karaterobot »

mattcantstop wrote: post #171

40,000 deaths each year in the United States resulting from cars, and nobody lifts a finger. The side of a plane pops off a few miles up in the air and everybody loses their minds.

There are lots of safety regulations around cars. Not only manufacturers, but drivers themselves are regulated. People who sell cars are regular. Streets are regulated. Signage is regulated. Every aspect is heavily regulated, and this regulation is enforced by police tens of thousands of times a day. I'm not even sure what you could mean when you say nobody is lifting a finger. Do you imagine there's some scenario in which nobody ever dies in a car, and this is what would be required to declare that a finger had been lifted?

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

#266

Post by smrtinsert »

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.

But some guy told me disbanding congress and the Supreme Court was the way

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

#267

Post by Geisterde »

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…

Thats the point, the power will be abused. Free markets subvert toxic heirarchies and inefficient industries, thats how america was designed to work, private capital formation and the ability to compete freely. When you need to resort to political means to achieve your ends you violate peoples rights, those rights are considered above the authority of the government.

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

#268

Post by JohnFen »

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…

> And government should only have as much power as you think the worst possible people in charge should have.

That doesn't make real sense to me, because that means that government is impossible. I prefer the idea that "desire for office should be disqualification for office."

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

#269

Post by wegfawefgawefg »

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…

I know countries are different, but there are many people who are pro severely minimal government in the USA.

And it does not seem so unlike the initial intentions for the country either.

If you frame it as anarchy it sounds like screaming chaos. But consider for a moment that the vast majority of laws that exist that are enforcable now only recently came to be.

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

#270

Post by JohnFen »

Geisterde wrote: post #267
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…

Thats the point, the power will be abused. Free markets subvert toxic heirarchies and inefficient industries, thats how america was designed to work, private capital formation and the ability to compete freely. When you need to resort to political means to achieve your ends you violate peoples rights, those rights are considered above the authority of the government.

> 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.

Post reply on HN