4 ms·

> What an odd point of view. Homicides are down; should we loosen the laws? Sure, why not? Why does additional overhead added to systems always need to be perm

by umvi 8y ago

> What an odd point of view. Homicides are down; should we loosen the laws? Sure, why not? Why does additional overhead added to systems always need to be permanent? It's like installing Norton Anti Virus and then never being able to uninstall it ever again. Sometimes I think it would be okay to say: "Wow, aviation has been safe for 20 years since 9/11, maybe locked cockpits and increased public awareness are good enough, let's cut out the most onerous parts of the TSA and make our airports more lean and efficient"

SilasX 8y ago
Earlier you were saying that the optimal move would be for the union to dissolve, and now you're comparing that to loosening air regs after they turn out to have overcorrected. That's moving the goalposts. You should compare "dissolving the union" to "abolishing all air regs" or "easing up on union activism" to "loosening the more onerous regs".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- y4mi 8y ago
  It's actually worse. In his examples, nobody profits from a disregard of the rules. A more similar scenario would be "let's disband the IRS, as nobody does tax evasion anymore"
naravara 8y ago
Traffic fatalities are down, I guess we can get rid of the seat belts and airbags now?
munk-a 8y ago
I prefer an analogy of "Nobody in NYC has been mugged in 3 months, let's fire all the policemen." because I think it's much more accurate from the angle that a union existing, but not doing anything other than sitting there, is still adding a pressure that management will keep in mind, a union being disbanded is saying "Welp, go ahead, do your worst." (and probably worse than a union never having existed, because a lack of a union can still retain the threat that a union may form, while a union dissolving is more demonstrative of collective bargaining just failing due to poor social cohesion which means the weaker actors can be picked on freely)

by umvi 8y ago

SilasX 8y ago

Earlier you were saying that the optimal move would be for the union to dissolve, and now you're comparing that to loosening air regs after they turn out to have overcorrected. That's moving the goalposts. You should compare "dissolving the union" to "abolishing all air regs" or "easing up on union activism" to "loosening the more onerous regs".

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
y4mi 8y ago
It's actually worse. In his examples, nobody profits from a disregard of the rules. A more similar scenario would be "let's disband the IRS, as nobody does tax evasion anymore"

naravara 8y ago

Traffic fatalities are down, I guess we can get rid of the seat belts and airbags now?

munk-a 8y ago

I prefer an analogy of "Nobody in NYC has been mugged in 3 months, let's fire all the policemen." because I think it's much more accurate from the angle that a union existing, but not doing anything other than sitting there, is still adding a pressure that management will keep in mind, a union being disbanded is saying "Welp, go ahead, do your worst." (and probably worse than a union never having existed, because a lack of a union can still retain the threat that a union may form, while a union dissolving is more demonstrative of collective bargaining just failing due to poor social cohesion which means the weaker actors can be picked on freely)