7 ms·

There are many, many varied beliefs in Libertarianism - even within America and within the Libertarian Party. On the political compass, it is opposite authorita

by KGIII 9y ago

There are many, many varied beliefs in Libertarianism - even within America and within the Libertarian Party. On the political compass, it is opposite authoritarianism. Taken to extremes, it is anarchy. It can have left or right components. It's quite a spectrum. That said, the commons must be protected. The right to repair would qualify as the commons. At the same time, forcing companies to excessive standards isn't always the best answer. In a perfect world, we'd have perfect information and rational buyers. We don't have that. As the other poster suggested, getting rid of the DMCA would be a good start. I'd say companies should not be allowed to actively prevent repair or modification, but doing so renders the warranty invalid. I'm pretty far over in the left side. I'm probably best defined as a libertarian socialist, not too far from the social democrats of Europe.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> I'd say companies should not be allowed to actively prevent repair or modification, but doing so renders the warranty invalid. I absolutely don't agree. Why should the fact that I use your product in ways that you didn't explicitly allow mean that you are not responsible for defects in your product? A really important aspect of ownership is that I can actually do with what I own whatever I want to do, and not just in the sense that it is legal to do so, but in the sense that it causes no disadvantage for me. Just because I install an additional wall socket in my house, does not mean that you can disclaim responsibility for all defects in the house that I paid you to build, and the same should apply to IT devices. You are obviously not responsible for any defects that I cause by modifying your product, but that's it, you should still be fully responsible for the quality of your product.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Too difficult to judge once it has been tampered with. The courts don't have time to judge each case on its merits and there's no reasonable surety that your modification didn't harm the product. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
  - freedomben 9y ago
    I agree. I would also rather have clear rules up front than have to rely on the (often arbitrary and subjective) decision of the judge.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      So, you prefer clear rules that say "fuck you" over unclear rules that say "whoever caused the damage has to bear the costs"?
      - freedomben 9y ago
        No, but thanks for consistently straw-manning my arguments. I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up" If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. If it's not a mutually beneficial exchange of goods (money for a product) then it shouldn't take place. If you don't like the rules, you should buy from a different manufacturer.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up" Well, except that at least my point was about laws, and this is not a useful law. The question is not what rules you would like to see from manufacturers, but what meta-rules you would like to see from the government that define how manufacturers can make rules that apply to you. > If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. Why should there be any difference between the two? If either of them is defective as delivered, why should it not always be the responsibility ot the manufacturer/seller to fix the problem, and why should it play any role whether I modified the product, be it in software or in hardware, as long as my modification is not the cause for the defect? > But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. Well, except it isn't, because whatever is between me and the company is ultimately governed by the framework provided by laws, and thus enforced by the government. An agreement that cannot be enforced is ultimately worthless. So, the interesting question is: What rules should the government enforce and which should it make effectively worthless by not enforcing them?
- freedomben 9y ago
  Asking to be free from the consequences of your decisions is really not reasonable IMHO. I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand freedom to do what you want with your own device (and I do), but to also demand that somebody else pay for it when you break it would make providing a warranty a suicide-operation, meaning few companies would do it. And the answer to that problem (created by government in the first place) would be more government in the form of forcing companies to provide warranties, which would result in nobody shipping anything cause it's too damn expensive, or else charging insane markup to cover warranty repair costs. Then the government would have to institute price controls...
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    How is a pre-existing manufacturing defect in a device a consequence of me competently modifying the device, so that that would then justify that I have to pay to replace the defective product?
    - freedomben 9y ago
      It's not. But if you try to flash some incompatible custom rom and end up bricking your device, that isn't the manufacturers fault. Yet you seem to be arguing that they should foot the bill for it.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        Where do you think I said anything like that?
        freedomben 9y ago
        I re-read your posts carefully, and I concede that you did not actually state or imply that an incompetent modification should be covered. I think I'm actually in complete agreement with what you've said (at least in this thread, can't speak to other threads ATM cause I haven't read them all). Perhaps our only disagreement may be on whether governments should enforce this, or whether companies should do it on their own. I fully agree with the latter (in fact I bought a phone from OnePlus specifically for this reason).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
WaxProlix 9y ago
Sorry, I specified American Liberterian to differentiate from anarchists, leftists, anti-hierarchicalists, and Keynesians. Pretty much just specifically looking for right-wing anti-collectivist perspectives here.

by KGIII 9y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> I'd say companies should not be allowed to actively prevent repair or modification, but doing so renders the warranty invalid. I absolutely don't agree. Why should the fact that I use your product in ways that you didn't explicitly allow mean that you are not responsible for defects in your product? A really important aspect of ownership is that I can actually do with what I own whatever I want to do, and not just in the sense that it is legal to do so, but in the sense that it causes no disadvantage for me. Just because I install an additional wall socket in my house, does not mean that you can disclaim responsibility for all defects in the house that I paid you to build, and the same should apply to IT devices. You are obviously not responsible for any defects that I cause by modifying your product, but that's it, you should still be fully responsible for the quality of your product.

KGIII 9y ago
Too difficult to judge once it has been tampered with. The courts don't have time to judge each case on its merits and there's no reasonable surety that your modification didn't harm the product. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
- freedomben 9y ago
  I agree. I would also rather have clear rules up front than have to rely on the (often arbitrary and subjective) decision of the judge.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    So, you prefer clear rules that say "fuck you" over unclear rules that say "whoever caused the damage has to bear the costs"?
    - freedomben 9y ago
      No, but thanks for consistently straw-manning my arguments. I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up" If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. If it's not a mutually beneficial exchange of goods (money for a product) then it shouldn't take place. If you don't like the rules, you should buy from a different manufacturer.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up" Well, except that at least my point was about laws, and this is not a useful law. The question is not what rules you would like to see from manufacturers, but what meta-rules you would like to see from the government that define how manufacturers can make rules that apply to you. > If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. Why should there be any difference between the two? If either of them is defective as delivered, why should it not always be the responsibility ot the manufacturer/seller to fix the problem, and why should it play any role whether I modified the product, be it in software or in hardware, as long as my modification is not the cause for the defect? > But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. Well, except it isn't, because whatever is between me and the company is ultimately governed by the framework provided by laws, and thus enforced by the government. An agreement that cannot be enforced is ultimately worthless. So, the interesting question is: What rules should the government enforce and which should it make effectively worthless by not enforcing them?
freedomben 9y ago
Asking to be free from the consequences of your decisions is really not reasonable IMHO. I think it's perfectly reasonable to demand freedom to do what you want with your own device (and I do), but to also demand that somebody else pay for it when you break it would make providing a warranty a suicide-operation, meaning few companies would do it. And the answer to that problem (created by government in the first place) would be more government in the form of forcing companies to provide warranties, which would result in nobody shipping anything cause it's too damn expensive, or else charging insane markup to cover warranty repair costs. Then the government would have to institute price controls...
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  How is a pre-existing manufacturing defect in a device a consequence of me competently modifying the device, so that that would then justify that I have to pay to replace the defective product?
  - freedomben 9y ago
    It's not. But if you try to flash some incompatible custom rom and end up bricking your device, that isn't the manufacturers fault. Yet you seem to be arguing that they should foot the bill for it.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      Where do you think I said anything like that?
      - freedomben 9y ago
        I re-read your posts carefully, and I concede that you did not actually state or imply that an incompetent modification should be covered. I think I'm actually in complete agreement with what you've said (at least in this thread, can't speak to other threads ATM cause I haven't read them all). Perhaps our only disagreement may be on whether governments should enforce this, or whether companies should do it on their own. I fully agree with the latter (in fact I bought a phone from OnePlus specifically for this reason).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

WaxProlix 9y ago

Sorry, I specified American Liberterian to differentiate from anarchists, leftists, anti-hierarchicalists, and Keynesians. Pretty much just specifically looking for right-wing anti-collectivist perspectives here.