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

351–360 of 367 posts

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

#351

Post by AnimalMuppet »

krapp wrote: post #350
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the Bill of Rights, either. The Declaration of Independence. No, there's another question on abortion. Is abortion a right that anyone should have? Bluntly, is it murder, or not? If it's murder, then it's not a right that anyone should have, whether or not that inconveniences the mother. So do you regard the fetus as human (and therefore entitled to the same protection as other humans), or not? That's not a quest…

> Is abortion a right that anyone should have? Bluntly, is it murder, or not? If it's murder, then it's not a right that anyone should have, whether or not that inconveniences the mother. You're oversimplifying the argument, because not every case of killing another human being is considered murder. "Murder" is a legal construct. The right to kill another human being does exist in certain circumstances, such as in se…

See, in your last paragraph, you're assuming the answer. "That right exists whether anyone wants it to or not". Does the right to murder exist?

If you can't understand the other side's view, you can't do anything but fight them to the ends of the earth. Well, it's been 51 years since Roe, and you still haven't won, so maybe you should re-think that approach.

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

#352

Post by krapp »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #351
krapp wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is abortion a right that anyone should have? Bluntly, is it murder, or not? If it's murder, then it's not a right that anyone should have, whether or not that inconveniences the mother. You're oversimplifying the argument, because not every case of killing another human being is considered murder. "Murder" is a legal construct. The right to kill another human being does exist in certain circumstances, such as in se…

See, in your last paragraph, you're assuming the answer. "That right exists whether anyone wants it to or not". Does the right to murder exist? If you can't understand the other side's view, you can't do anything but fight them to the ends of the earth. Well, it's been 51 years since Roe, and you still haven't won, so maybe you should re-think that approach.

The right that I was talking about was clearly abortion, not murder, since it was a answer to your question of whether abortion was "a right that anyone should have?". I even went through the trouble of pointing out that "murder" is a legal construct, not a right, whereas killing another human being is, clearly, considered a right. This is an important context to consider in the question of abortion, because "if a fetus is human then abortion is murder" (essentially your argument) is a false dichotomy, just as "does the right to murder exist" is a contradiction in terms.

I think I understand the other side's view more than you understand mine, since you seem to be arguing against some strawman anti-abortionist living rent free in your head, and I at least put in a good faith attempt.

And as far as approaches go, attacking the person instead of their arguments will doubtless score you points on the internet, but it won't convince anyone of anything. But I guess you're correct that I can't argue with results. You don't have to convince anyone when you can just force the issue through a cabal of unelected judges by fiat.

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

#353

Post by returningfory2 »

baryphonic wrote: post #334
returningfory2 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In general, the Senate's ability to set its own rules surely cannot be unrestricted. For example, when the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate would it have been constitutional for them to create a new rule that all tax decreases require unanimous consent of the Senate? Or for Republicans in the same situation to create a rule that all tax increases require unanimous consent? Both of these changes would seem to be…

> The Constitution clearly contemplates these situations where the vice president's vote wouldn't matter, so it stands to reason that the Senate is free to adopt rules requiring a different vote threshold than simple majority.

Just a note that the Supreme Court has generally reached the opposite conclusion to this in situations where the Constitution specifies special behavior. The general philosophy seems to be: if the Constitution specifies conditions under which there is a special behavior, that special behavior can _only_ apply under those conditions.

For example in Reynolds v. Sims [1], the Court held that state legislature districts had to have roughly equal population sizes even though the US Senate by design has districts of dramatically different populations sizes. The existence of a specific exemption to "one person one vote" in the US Constitution doesn't permit other exemptions.

I feel there's a similar thing with presidential qualification. The Constitution lists certain conditions (e.g. 35 years or older), but then Congress can't add additional conditions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

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

#354

Post by int_19h »

akira2501 wrote: post #299
int_19h wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no historical or current examples of societies larger than a tribe that are lacking any form of government. The thing that is not mandatory, however, is the state , which is not a synonym. State-based government is centralized government, but government does not necessarily need to be centralized to the point where the result is a state.

You are limiting your definition of society to one that can be described by defended political borders. It's circular and tautological. I would argue that the internet is a society that's broader than these political borders, obviously exists, and does so entirely outside of government control. I would suggest you both missed this definition of society.

Not at all. On the contrary, what we can see in those distributed internet societies (internet as a whole is not a society, it's a medium) like e.g. Wikipedia, is that various forms of organized governance also emerge past a certain scale. There are extremely few places on the internet that are fully ungoverned.

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

#355

Post by pleasantpeasant »

itsoktocry wrote: post #63
pleasantpeasant wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SRO sounds like a middle-man in this process. And like all middle-man industries, they suck out money from both sides that they deal with. We can easily publicly fund over-sight committees to oversee these industries instead of relying on SROs who take tax-payer money and are in the perfect financial and power position to do some really corrupt and immoral things. Look at the National Association of Realtors, another…

> We can easily publicly fund over-sight committees to oversee these industries instead of relying on SROs who take tax-payer money and are in the perfect financial and power position to do some really corrupt and immoral things. Easily, really? Why is the default position that industry players are corrupt and immoral, but the government overseers will act independently and altruistically and have no financial stake…

It's easier to vote out or force out a corrupt an immoral government overseer.

A private corporate overseer cannot be voted out or forced out. Only a CEO or board can decide that. It's undemocratic.

The public has an actual voice in government while having absolutely no voice in a private corporation.

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

#356

Post by AnthonyMouse »

roenxi wrote: post #344
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a strong correlation between air pollution and rapidly improving quality of life. There is a strong correlation between air pollution and industrialization and a strong correlation between industrialization and quality of life. That doesn't mean pollution improves quality of life, it means you want industrialization without pollution. To take a specific example, the ban on leaded gasoline was Good. Lead is…

> it means you want industrialization without pollution. If we have the option of industrialisation without pollution, why are the corporations polluting the air in your example? Nobody pollutes for the sheer joy of annoying their neighbours. The issue we face in the modern world is nobody knows how to do industrialisation without pollution. Governments banning pollution has just stifled industrialisation. Industrial…

> If we have the option of industrialisation without pollution, why are the corporations polluting the air in your example?

Because it costs less. You can install a catalytic converter on a car and it substantially reduces certain types of pollutants, but catalytic converters cost money.

This is a tragedy of the commons problem. The emissions from your car over its lifetime cause e.g. $0.01 in damage to everyone in the city including you, which is a million people, so you'd be causing $10,000 in damage, and breathing the exhaust from a million cars over the same period would be causing $10,000 in damage to you. But breathing the exhaust from your car would only be causing $0.01 in damage to you. And a catalytic converter costs e.g. $500.

So you're better off if everyone has one including you, because you pay $500 and don't have to suffer $10,000 in damage. But you don't get the same result as an individual choice, because you'd rather suffer $0.01 worth of incremental damage than pay $500, and then what anyone else does is out of your hands, but they have the same individual incentive as you.

> The issue we face in the modern world is nobody knows how to do industrialisation without pollution. Governments banning pollution has just stifled industrialisation.

What we haven't figured out how to do is regulate pollution efficiently.

If you leave it up to individual choice it's a tragedy of the commons, but if you give it to elected officials it's the opposite problem. Someone proposes a rule that would impose enormous costs on the industry to prevent only 5% that much total damage. This isn't worth it, the cost/benefit is way underwater, but if you put it up for a vote, 95% of people don't work in the industry and don't care if they drive it out of the jurisdiction, so it passes.

So you need some kind of additional constraint on what regulations can pass that require them to survive a cost/benefit analysis, and we don't currently have an effective system for that. Maybe something like: The government has to provide a cost/benefit analysis for each provision of each regulation, provisions with negative expected value are stricken, and you can sue the government if their cost/benefit analysis is in conflict with reality.

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

#357

Post by AnimalMuppet »

krapp wrote: post #352
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, in your last paragraph, you're assuming the answer. "That right exists whether anyone wants it to or not". Does the right to murder exist? If you can't understand the other side's view, you can't do anything but fight them to the ends of the earth. Well, it's been 51 years since Roe, and you still haven't won, so maybe you should re-think that approach.

The right that I was talking about was clearly abortion, not murder, since it was a answer to your question of whether abortion was "a right that anyone should have?". I even went through the trouble of pointing out that "murder" is a legal construct, not a right, whereas killing another human being is, clearly, considered a right. This is an important context to consider in the question of abortion, because "if a fe…

95% (number made up, but it won't be too far wrong) of abortions are not life or health of the mother, and are therefore not "killing in self defense". They aren't killing in war, either, which is the other "it's not murder" category. Killing another person for my convenience is not a right. It's murder.

So there's a real issue here, not just "strawman anti-abortionist" stuff. It's something that actual anti-abortionists believe. Not just a few, either.

You're not going to persuade them by telling them that "murder is a social construct". (In fact, that argument is completely off-point, because "legal" is a social construct, and the argument is whether abortion should be legal.)

And if you think that there is a right to killing that goes beyond self-defense, they're not likely to agree with you. (I'm pretty sure I don't, either, unless you can be more specific about what kind of right you think that is and why you think we have it.)

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

#358

Post by mulmen »

nerpderp82 wrote: post #326
mulmen wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Who are the “they”s in this example? The more I read this comment the less I understand it. Can you try again?

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

#359

Post by roenxi »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #356
roenxi wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it means you want industrialization without pollution. If we have the option of industrialisation without pollution, why are the corporations polluting the air in your example? Nobody pollutes for the sheer joy of annoying their neighbours. The issue we face in the modern world is nobody knows how to do industrialisation without pollution. Governments banning pollution has just stifled industrialisation. Industrial…

> If we have the option of industrialisation without pollution, why are the corporations polluting the air in your example? Because it costs less. You can install a catalytic converter on a car and it substantially reduces certain types of pollutants, but catalytic converters cost money. This is a tragedy of the commons problem. The emissions from your car over its lifetime cause e.g. $0.01 in damage to everyone in t…

> So you're better off if everyone has one including you...

That is transparent bullshit [0]. The west hasn't been competitive at producing cars in 40 years and all the benefits of the industrial know-how flowed to Asia where they've built several civilisations worth of capital. I'd be much better off if we'd adopted pro-industrial instead of pro-environmental policies and captured the growth ourselves. The Asians have consistently been building wheeled scrap boxes, working them up to something that meets western standards later on after the industrial foundations are in place; it is these regulations that are killing us and distracting attention from the process efficiencies that actually make people better off.

The tragedy of the commons here is that competent people have to share a regulatory framework with the same naturalists who would have turned back the industrial revolution because they thought coal was too polluting. We're still fighting those fools off centuries later and it was absurd to ever give them the time of day given the destruction they have wrought on our industry.

And this isn't even considering that by mass western governments are welfare and warfare. This sort of administrative trivia is the most civilisationally crippling but not really what "the government" is by budget.

[0] Although on reflection, I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse than the more traditional opaque bullshit. If I were being less inflammatory I might say "you've forgotten to account for the positive externalities of cheap processes; which are decidedly nonlinear and really quite important at the low end of the cost curve".

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

#360

Post by gottorf »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #348
zmgsabst wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s also real trade offs: I had fiber to my condo a decade ago in Thailand, but still don’t reliably in the US. Regulations and government monopolies on poles and conduits slow development at the same time they reduce fires and clutter on the poles. (Whoa are there some real tangles in Thailand.) There’s a reasonable debate on where and how much we should regulate things.

I'm not concerned with slow development and the occasional fire. I'm more concerned with rampant over-regulation. Being required to have a license to put up a non load bearing wall in my own house... The homeless in the US that cannot afford the minimum ordained "humane" dwelling size. Minimum parking lot size requirements. Minimum wage. The fed modulating the currency value with the goal of INCREASING unemployment.…

> but don't see the ghost it unleashes

> people usually assume there are no costs to regulation, and only benefit

This is an under-emphasized point. So often, well-meaning laws and regulations achieve some kind of visible social benefit paired with some invisible social costs.

Similarly to how some claim that certain companies have learned to "privatize the profits, socialize the losses", you could say that politicians have learned to privatize the visible benefits and socialize the invisible detriments to any policy.

Post reply on HN