[Aeolun]

You’d expect companies that sell these kinds of tours for 250k a pop to be vetted though?

If it’s uncle bob in his garage I’d be fine with lack of regulation, but when he starts commercially selling his trips he’d need to pass safety standards.

[brutusborn]

No, you’d only expect that if you have authoritarian values.

In a truly free world, people are allowed to make dumb, risky decisions.

[sn41]

In such a truly free world, you might have to check every piece of chicken for salmonella contamination. You might have to stop your truck at every turn to see if people are racing from the opposite direction. You might not be very sure that your alcohol is not actually methanol....

Regulations do make our life smooth, even if there is a tendency to go overboard.

[brutusborn]

The difference is scale and ability to measure risk. We know how to make chicken safe and a lot of people eat it, so regulation works well.

For subs, it is a tiny number of people and risks are nearly impossible to assess.

[sn41]

Yeah, I agree to that. It is a bit avant garde, so people signing up must know that it is more miss than hit, so buyer beware.

[Aeolun]

> risks are nearly impossible to assess

We have subs that have been touring the oceans for several decades, so we have a pretty good idea of what is unsafe and what works.

[ClumsyPilot]

> risks are nearly impossible to assess

this is total fabrication, we have submarines for 200 years. WW1 german u-boats were safer than this piece of crap

[brutusborn]

We’ve had subs, but not mini subs that go to 4km depths.

[ClumsyPilot]

We sent a mini sub to explore the deepest point on earth 60 years ago.

[ikekkdcjkfke]

It's a "can't have nice things" situation. Some or multiple idiots does something stupid that hurts a bunch of people and the thing gets regulated, like a whole town burning down or a high rise collapsing

[toss1]

No, it is not authoritarian to regulate things like safety for the general public.

It is a necessary component of a complex society.

The main distinction between a self-determined vs authoritarian govt is the independence or lack thereof of all of the govt and society's institutions, including he legislative, executive, & judicial branches of govt, and in general society the press, industry, academy, religious orgs, social orgs, sports, etc. In self-determined societies, these are all quite independent and have a balance of power. In an authoritarian society, the branches of govt and institutions of society are coerced to serve the executive(s) (dictator or oligarchs).

A little bit of regulation does not make a government authoritarian.

[brutusborn]

This is not the general public, this is a few adventurers. Very different.

Also, desiring to give up power to an authority is authoritarianism (at least according to Oxford): “ the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.”

[toss1]

>>strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom

And that goal cannot be achieved as long as there is 1) rule of law and 2) broadly independent branches of govt and societal institutions. A wannabe autocrat cannot successfully infringe on personal freedoms if (s)he cannot get the legislature, judiciary, press, etc. to go along with it.

And I totally get adventurism, having been an internal-level alpine ski racer, rock climbing instructor, champion sportscar racer, etc.

The key here is how much these "adventurers" are putting the rest of society at risk. Because, right this minute, you (if you are a US or Canadian resident) and I are paying $$millions for the rescue/recovery of the asshat CEO and his four sucker customers.

I think a better regulatory solution may be to require putting up a bond covering the cost of rescue and/or cleanup if something goes awry, or sign-off that there would be no rescue attempt whatsoever (and a bond to cover cleanup of a historic site). But it is not authoritarian to say that "No, we won't allow such adventures without meeting sound safety and systems standards."

These clowns didn't even want to pay to qualify the window in the sub past 1/3 of the planned operating depth, they had not even an emergency signal buoy, or some way of making/emitting a unique sound so they could be quickly located (Canadian sonobuoys detected some clanging sounds yesterday, but they are still not found).

If society really wants any dolt to fabricate any contraption and expect the rest of society to pay to rescue them, that is a societal decision. But it is also totally ok to say NO to that, or put on some basic requirements.

These are neither slippery slopes nor authoritarianism, and it is wrong to cry "authoritarianism" at any rule you might not like; it can be legitimately discussed without catastrophizing.

[antonvs]

Authoritarianism as a political system, as opposed to an abstract concept, is a bit more specific than that. E.g. in Cerutti’s “Conceptualizing Politics: An Introduction to Political Philosophy”, he summarizes common aspects of various definitions as follows:

> “It seems that its main features are the non-acceptance of conflict and plurality as normal elements of politics, the will to preserve the status quo and prevent change by keeping all political dynamics under close control by a strong central power, and lastly, the erosion of the rule of law, the division of powers, and democratic voting procedures.”

Western democracies are not examples of authoritarianism, no matter how much they might interfere with the desire of rich people to prove they’re special.

[anamexis]

Supporting fairly basic safety regulations for commercial endeavors does not equal strict obedience to authority.

[brutusborn]

I’d be interested to see your proposal for ‘basic’ safety regulations for subs. When you get into the weeds of this stuff it is actually very difficult and costly.

We struggle to regulate giant industries, there is no chance we can regulate every crazy idea that someone wants to try out.

[anamexis]

Submarines used for commercial use must be certified by DNV according to their safety standards.

It’s not that hard, and in any case complexity does not imply authoritarianism.

[wpietri]

It's not different. "OceanGate intends to make underwater exploration cheaper and accessible to private citizens", says Wikipedia. And the people on it look, aside from their wealth, like members of the general public to me. They have no particular knowledge or skill, so I don't think they have an expert's ability to evaluate the risks.

[brutusborn]

How would you propose regulators determine if a person is skilled or knowledgeable enough to evaluate the risks?

[wpietri]

I wouldn't personally propose that, because I'm not an expert. And I'm not sure that would ever be written into regulation; I think the ability to assess the danger may be more relevant for the civil suits that will presumably soon be bankrupting Oceangate.

[toss1]

There exist entire bodies of knowledge about ensuring that equipment meets the physical requirements of the intended use, that the systems are designed to fail in a safe(r) mode and have redundancies in case of failures, that processes are created to operate more accident-free and also recover from accidents, and the ability to manage and mitigate risk in general. These come from centuries of seafaring and aeronautics and decades of spacefaring.

It is all there, and just because you don't know about it and I cannot recite it all off the top of my head does not mean that it doesn't exist and that it could not be implemented. Regulators know how to find the right people to evaluate the risks and set suitable requirements. (That said, in some industries, regulatory capture and corruption is a real problem, but it does not seem to be the case here.)

[peterashford]

Having rules does not make you authoritarian.

[detourdog]

He is not selling the trips they are paying to be crew. This is such a needless story.

[jacurtis]

This is an important distinction which I believe was made to thread some legal loopholes. They all signed paperwork that they were participating in the "mission" as a crew member of an experimental vessel.

So literally, it is like, "the four of you's job is to look out this window, make sure it doesn't fog up, my job is to do everything else, alright let's dive"

[sn41]

That doesn't absolve them of negligence. A crew hardly signs up to be killed.

[vkou]

Recklessly killing your workers is even worse.

[detourdog]

Many jobs are dangerous and regulated but killing customers is different. somehow it is the insurance companies that are the first line of defense when some conjures up a novel scheme.

[vkou]

Dangerous jobs still require the employer to try really hard to make them as safe as possible.

It doesn't sound like that was the case here.

[detourdog]

This was out in the middle of sea not much jurisdiction. I think the crew would need a labor union and refuse to work to improve the working conditions. Consider the guy was on the sub I'm sure he did everything he could think of.

[marmakoide]

Even Uncle Bumblefuck alone in his garage need some regulation. Imagine him deciding to build a solid fuel rocket, he might send shrapnel all around the block.