Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - View Single Post - OWS: Justification
View Single Post
Old 10-27-2011, 09:36 PM   #110 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,749

Originally Posted by Outlander View Post
How do you define accountability? How do you think that a private corporation will be more accountable than a government agency? The NTSB and FAA for example is staffed with some of the most experienced pilots, controllers, aeronautical engineers, mechanics, etc who came from the industry. You appear to cling to the disproven theory that business will self police and always have the public's best interest in mind. It just is not so. Agencies like the FAA and NTSB were created as a result of public outcry because of accidents. Our skies are far safer because of this government oversight.
Private enterprise is chiefly policed and held accountable by the people who patronize it. It is the lack of due diligence which has become a cultural norm which creates an opportunity for acts of predatory (even if involuntary) business. Business has to have their consumers interest in mind because the consumer's *own interest* is part of the terms of negotiation for a business transaction to occur. It's not disproven whatsoever, because I gave clear examples of agencies which set specific details of regulatory guidance that are outside the purview of government. INPO, WANO, ASME and the like are many of the agencies who's regulatory guidelines I deal with on a daily basis.

To suggest that because a government agency exists and performs regulatory functions and dismiss the notion that capacity would not have been performed otherwise is fallicious at best. These agencies are not accountable because there are no metrics measuring the efficacy of their performance and no mission statement to guide their philosophy. I pointed this out when I gave the military as a counter-example because the military (and things like the Post Office) have a precisely defined objective(s), an ordered and carefully designed hierarchical organization to achieve this objective and metrics around evaluating how effective they ultimately are.

Again I would suggest that the opposite is true. By his very nature, the capitalist will always be scheming and looking for ways to use the system to his advantage. Collusion with regulatory bodies is a goldmine for the capitalist.
That may how a capitalist would react in a environment which isn't capitalistic, but you are still missing the point. Capitalism seeks to eliminate avenues by which competitors gain artificial advantages over one another. If there are minimal, simple and straight forward regulations, there's not much in the way for them to exploit.

It is an ideal tool to slant the playing field in his favor. Free Market theory is nothing more than economic Darwinism and ultimately creates monopolies. True free market capitalism is not a a system that is good for a society. Left to it's own devices, it becomes predatory and self destructive. Regulation is necessary to protect the welfare of the society from the capitalist.
It is Economic Darwinism. What of it? In nature, there are lots of predators, yet beings low on the food chain manage to survive and even flourish. This might sound cruel, but truly, who can we hold responsible for each person's own personal safety? There seems to be this notion that this limit of the decisions we can make for people and the amount we can try to insulate them from the natural dangers that arise from the continual development of society is boundless.

I don't have a problem with the concept of regulatory limits, but there is never any discussion as to when limits are becoming ineffectual or even counter-productive, when they should be removed or ways to even determine their efficacy.

Are you for real? Are you really suggesting that as a passenger, Joe Q Public should be an expert at aeronautical engineering? What, as a passenger I should personally inspect the aircraft and read the maintenance logs before deciding if it is safe to board? That is absurd. We create agencies to act as proxies to do this. Lack of regulation and lack of enforcement always allows complacency and jeopardizes safety.
We create proxies but these proxies need not be government agencies. The very notion we use government agencies to research what is an acceptable standard of safety is dangerous because no one holds these agencies accountable. It's taken for granted that these agencies are infallible by the layman, because they are governmental in nature. Look at yourself as an example. You never acknowledge the notion that regulatory measures can be just as predatory and destructive as the supposed predatory capital hungry businesses you fear. Whenever a disaster happens, no one ever questions whether or not the agencies which are supposed to be performing due diligence for us are actually performing as they are supposed to. There is no risk to these agencies, no incentive for them to do so because no one knows or does studies on their effectiveness or anything of that nature.

You don't "know about that quote" because you didn't bother to even watch the video. You only want to post your opinion not listen to any others.
No, I didn't, because I'm not going to watch a 50 minute video to get context of some talking points you want use. I watched the first 2 minutes of each segment. What exactly is it you want me to glean from this material? I am listening to your points but that doesn't mean you get to provide the dilemma of either being forced to listen to your filibuster or be deemed closed minded. I watched as much as I had time for in order to try to get an understanding of why you provided this material.

Had you watched, you would clearly understand the context of the quote. The point of that quote is that certain procedures were established ( not by the evil government but by a private company; namely the people who made the airplane) regarding the maintenance and those procedures were deemed by the airline to cost more than the cost of a major crash every 5 or 10 years. Now if you agree with the morality of that logic, I would suggest that you are a sociopath.
My point is still valid. There is nothing sociopathic about accepting that loss of life is going to be a consequence of developing and deploying emerging technologies (which airflight still is, given its relative infancy) to commercial applications. That doesn't mean trying to NOT to minimize it, of course. Minimizing loss of life obviously has to be the first priority but not just from a moral standpoint, but from a business standpoint also.

To suggest it's sociopathic to accept that, while preventable, a fatal accident is a physical possibility means one would also have to accept that passengers who fly and understand that there is at least a remote possibility of their loss of life or limb and do so anyway are respectively suicidal or masochistic.
CheeseForSteeze is offline