5 ms·

"I know what is best for you and me, so I'll force you to make the chargers I want" I don't think Apple are the biggest assholes in this situation.

• dTal 7y ago
  So, to be clear, your position is that the very concept of regulation is illegitimate? "I know what is best for you, so I'll force you to make the car safety features I want".
  • sandov 7y ago
    It may be legitimate when the regulated action causes direct physical harm to someone else. For example: I think it's reasonable to regulate particulate emissions. It's not legitimate to regulate manufacture or commercialization of products when that manufacture or commercialization poses no direct threat to the physical well-being of other individuals.
    • dTal 7y ago
      Why draw the line at physical well-being? Why should it be fine to waste someone's time, cost them money, even destroy them emotionally, so long as you don't directly physically harm them? Your scope is absurdly narrow.
      • edmundsauto 7y ago
        Because it's a clear delineation point. Physical harm is much easier to observe. Emotional harm is a definition that would lead to too many false positives.
      • sandov 7y ago
        Because physicality is what defines if people are free or not, and freedom is the only moral principle that a reasonable, moral society can be based upon. If you forsake freedom, you might as well forget about morality altogether. Regulating emotions is arbitrary. Maybe it makes me sad that you post comments on HN. Should your comments be regulated?. Physical harm is where you draw the line, because it's the only line that makes sense.
        • pas 7y ago
          People starve, while they could have just photosynthesize physically all they want. smh! /s ... but seriously, yes, somehow claiming physical stuff is clean got popular, probably because of our intuition about the world, but it wasn't the case since people stsrted engaging in politics, trade, rituals, shaming each other for various reasons, invented organized religion, and so on. Though of course regulating emotions is a silly reductio ad absurdum, but there are a lot of steps between physical harm and woke feels. Such as monetary damages as determined by a court for things like discrimination, abuse of market position, libel/slander.
      • danem 7y ago
        Because in this case the consumer is choosing to waste their own time and their own money. If the charging situation is so terrible people are free to buy other phones.
      • samatman 7y ago
        Because, as the Romans put it, de minimis non curat lex. We are talking about law, not social expectation. It's not at all fine to waste someone's time, cost them money, destroy them emotionally, or insult their mother. But it shouldn't be illegal.
  • defnotashton2 7y ago
    Yes, that is in fact my argument, what is your counter? Regulations are centered around equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. People are not the same. Regions are not the same. They have localized, nuanced for better or worse problems and solutions. It's crazy to have completely separate input factors and expect the same outcome..
  • defnotashton2 7y ago
    Also whats best for me is rarely ever universal. People really love to jump on the wagon for things like universal Healthcare in the states. You don't need Healthcare in your 20s. Most people don't, they need something like a disaster insurance with high deductables so that if it turns out they are in the statistical minority and get cancer in their 20s they do t get fucked. They don't need regular subsidized hospital visits they pay thousands of dollars I insurance premiums for so they can have a 20$ year checkup... It's The idea here is that "of we regulate it people will have access to safer livelihoods" the reality is that you are raising the barrier to entry for that particular lifestyle and in effect reducing lower class socio economic accessibility. Just because the feds mandate all new cars have backup cams doesn't mean people can afford the costs associated with it. People should have the ability to leverage risk to better their financial well being. Anything else and you have no class mobility and no autonomy.
    • pas 7y ago
      I live in a country with universal health care. I haven't seen my doctor in 3-4 years. And last time I saw him it was because the flu or a particularly nasty cold. People pay a fixed percent of their income into the HC system. Furthermore, while you are attending school (university, college, whatever), you are automatically covered. There was a small token copay system for a few years about 10 years ago, that helped to cut down wait queues. (It was something like 2USD for each visit, because there was a sentiment, that too many people went to the doctor unnecessarily.) There are of course possible ways to optimize it a lot more by incentivizing healthy lifestyle choices (eg. risk weighted additional premium to counter obesity, smoking, drinking, etc). The effect on mobility is nothing since it's a percentage "tax". Autonomy is nice, but cleaning up uninsured carcasses also has a cost, so autonomous folks should at least prepay that.
      • defnotashton2 7y ago
        Proved my point. If it costs 100$ to not be desperately poor, and you make 100$ and the Gov takes 60% of your 100$ you still only have 40$. Doesn't matter if the tax is a flat % or not you still don't have the money to not be poor. All so that you could visit the doctor 1 every 5 years for a flue without having to pay.. Alternatively If you lived freely, you could make 100$, decide you pay 60$for insurance if you want to feel safer and get the benefits from that service orrrr you could say "man I don't need that service right now in my life, so I'm going to invest that money instead while I'm young" and then not be poor.. Yea 50 years ago when nobody had health insurance the bodies piling up were a burden on society because everyone was dying because nobody could afford medical treatment..