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

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.

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.

Then how did this vessel operate without?

To my knowledge DNV certification is part of insurance processes. The crew could have asked for such a certification if they wanted to reduce risk (they definitely had the cash).

Because it’s not a regulation.

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.

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

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.

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.)

I didn’t mean to suggest that there are not regulations they could have used, I’m more interested in how the other commenter thinks ‘expertise’ should be judged, especially from the point of view of the passengers.

As someone who has dealt with certification bodies for designs critical to their operators lives I am well aware of the processes involved. In my experience regulators are often the least qualified to determine risks, since the most qualified people make more money on the other side of the fence. So regulators depend on following a rulebook rather than expert judgement. There are definitely rulebooks for submarines, but they are generally for naval applications with billions of resources, not to minisub expeditions.

The company was open that their design was cheap and cheerful and followed no certification or standard. The riders knew this and could have chosen more expensive, safer alternatives. But did they truly ‘know’ how much extra risk they were taking? I don’t think there’s any good way to judge that.

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.

>>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.