7 ms·

Alternatively: without this new source of revenue, auto manufacturers will be less able to compete on price and maintain the same margins. As a consumer, I don'

Alternatively: without this new source of revenue, auto manufacturers will be less able to compete on price and maintain the same margins. As a consumer, I don't get to decide whether I'd like a "repairable" car that doesn't harvest my data for $X, or am willing to settle for a data-harvesting, proprietary vehicle for $(X - Y) - the state has made that choice on my behalf and decided the latter should be illegal to sell to me (read: for me to purchase). That $Y probably ends up being small enough that it doesn't matter to the average high-paid HN reader, but consumer prices do matter to people at the margins. There's a reason ad-supported Kindles exist, even if I personally would never buy one.

allenrb 5y ago
Also, by prohibiting poor people from selling their own organs, it is more difficult for these folks to make ends meet in the short term. That doesn’t sound like good reasoning to me.
- landemva 5y ago
  A few years ago the feminist mantra was 'my body my choice'. Are people free or not?
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > Are people free or not? Why on earth do you think the answer to that question is "yes" or "no"?
maxwellb 5y ago
r.e. the state deciding for you - this was a statewide ballot measure, and passed with ~75% of the vote.
- quantified 5y ago
  Much closer to a “we the people” decision for voters than almost anything else.
- danShumway 5y ago
  That's a good point -- even if you approach this from a very strict Libertarian perspective, this regulation is pretty definitively an outcome that resulted from the free decisions of the majority of people who chose to live inside the state. So I guess taking the traditional Ancap question about free markets, and reapplying it, it's reasonable to ask: how can regulation that is the result of people's free voting choices not itself be considered free? And then you can get into whatever responses people have to that question in general about whether free choices can result in coercive structures that are worth opposing, which is not really my point here. My point is, I don't really see a huge fundamental difference between a free market deciding that a product isn't worth producing and a free democracy deciding that a product isn't worth producing. I don't see why one should inherently be viewed as more legitimate than the other. If the voters don't want automobile manufacturers to violate their privacy, and they want to pass a law about it, that's their choice as a community. It seems just as valid of a choice as anything else the free market could produce.
  - quantified 5y ago
    It doesn’t take much cynicism to state that the economy and politics are oriented to the interests of large business. Rare win for the citizens here.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > … even if you approach this from a very strict Libertarian perspective, this regulation is pretty definitively an outcome that resulted from the free decisions of the majority of people who chose to live inside the state. Are you serious? If you approach this from a "very strict Libertarian perspective" then the rights of the 25% (at least) who did not vote in favor of this rule are being infringed. It doesn't matter that a majority were in favor, because Libertarian ideology is not collectivist. Individual people have rights which are independent of what the majority choose. > My point is, I don't really see a huge fundamental difference between a free market deciding that a product isn't worth producing and a free democracy deciding that a product isn't worth producing. In the former case, if someone does decide to produce the good for others to use they are free to do so, even if the majority disagree. And if you really can't find anyone willing to produce the good you want to buy (unlikely), you can at least make it yourself without penalty. The difference between "no one is obligated to produce what you want" and "other people can use force to stop you and others from producing what you want for yourselves" is perfectly obvious. > If the voters don't want automobile manufacturers to violate their privacy, and they want to pass a law about it, that's their choice as a community. More collectivist nonsense. The rights of the voters favoring this measure, as a group, do not exceed the sum of the rights of the individual voters, and no individual voter has the right to use force to prevent other people from making or buying products the voter doesn't approve of. Ergo, the group also lacks any right to enforce their will in this matter on the minority who disagreed. They are not a party to the transaction and have no standing to interfere.
quantified 5y ago
Why not? They’ve been making cars for 100 years and margins go up and down, no data sales during they heydays. Anyway, it’s not anyone’s job to protect their margins.

allenrb 5y ago

Also, by prohibiting poor people from selling their own organs, it is more difficult for these folks to make ends meet in the short term. That doesn’t sound like good reasoning to me.

landemva 5y ago
A few years ago the feminist mantra was 'my body my choice'. Are people free or not?
- mcphage 5y ago
  > Are people free or not? Why on earth do you think the answer to that question is "yes" or "no"?

maxwellb 5y ago

r.e. the state deciding for you - this was a statewide ballot measure, and passed with ~75% of the vote.

quantified 5y ago
Much closer to a “we the people” decision for voters than almost anything else.
danShumway 5y ago
That's a good point -- even if you approach this from a very strict Libertarian perspective, this regulation is pretty definitively an outcome that resulted from the free decisions of the majority of people who chose to live inside the state. So I guess taking the traditional Ancap question about free markets, and reapplying it, it's reasonable to ask: how can regulation that is the result of people's free voting choices not itself be considered free? And then you can get into whatever responses people have to that question in general about whether free choices can result in coercive structures that are worth opposing, which is not really my point here. My point is, I don't really see a huge fundamental difference between a free market deciding that a product isn't worth producing and a free democracy deciding that a product isn't worth producing. I don't see why one should inherently be viewed as more legitimate than the other. If the voters don't want automobile manufacturers to violate their privacy, and they want to pass a law about it, that's their choice as a community. It seems just as valid of a choice as anything else the free market could produce.
- quantified 5y ago
  It doesn’t take much cynicism to state that the economy and politics are oriented to the interests of large business. Rare win for the citizens here.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > … even if you approach this from a very strict Libertarian perspective, this regulation is pretty definitively an outcome that resulted from the free decisions of the majority of people who chose to live inside the state. Are you serious? If you approach this from a "very strict Libertarian perspective" then the rights of the 25% (at least) who did not vote in favor of this rule are being infringed. It doesn't matter that a majority were in favor, because Libertarian ideology is not collectivist. Individual people have rights which are independent of what the majority choose. > My point is, I don't really see a huge fundamental difference between a free market deciding that a product isn't worth producing and a free democracy deciding that a product isn't worth producing. In the former case, if someone does decide to produce the good for others to use they are free to do so, even if the majority disagree. And if you really can't find anyone willing to produce the good you want to buy (unlikely), you can at least make it yourself without penalty. The difference between "no one is obligated to produce what you want" and "other people can use force to stop you and others from producing what you want for yourselves" is perfectly obvious. > If the voters don't want automobile manufacturers to violate their privacy, and they want to pass a law about it, that's their choice as a community. More collectivist nonsense. The rights of the voters favoring this measure, as a group, do not exceed the sum of the rights of the individual voters, and no individual voter has the right to use force to prevent other people from making or buying products the voter doesn't approve of. Ergo, the group also lacks any right to enforce their will in this matter on the minority who disagreed. They are not a party to the transaction and have no standing to interfere.

quantified 5y ago

Why not? They’ve been making cars for 100 years and margins go up and down, no data sales during they heydays. Anyway, it’s not anyone’s job to protect their margins.