4 ms·

No, the solution is not to give the state even more power over peoples bodies. I would never put proprietary software in my body unless I absolutely needed it t

No, the solution is not to give the state even more power over peoples bodies. I would never put proprietary software in my body unless I absolutely needed it to live, but that's a personal choice. It's wrong and contra productive to take that choice away from individuals and give it to the state.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> No, the solution is not to give the state even more power over peoples bodies. You seem to hold that truth to be self-evident, but I don't think that it is. Why do you say that? Do you think that the state has no role in making markets, in this case or others?
- 9864250 4y ago
  My reason for my first sentence is my last sentence, which I do hold as self-evident. I probably think it's wrong to take choice away from individuals and give it to the state, in part for a similar reason you think it's wrong to take choice away from individuals and give it to me.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    So, you're pro Methamphetamine, and and pro unregulated industrial pollution. Got it. Again, do you think that the state has no role in making markets, in this case or others?
    - 9864250 4y ago
      Of course I'm against the war on drugs. I'm not a fan of industrial pollution, whether it's regulated or not. No, I don't think the state should play any role in making markets, in this case or others.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        > No, I don't think the state should play any role in making markets, Markets only exist due to the rule of law. So also you know nothing about markets, and are pro-warlord. Got it.
        9864250 4y ago
        Market-like structures predate humanity[0], nobody invented or created markets. States only exist because of force. The state is literally the warlord who won, so it's you who are pro-warlord. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-biological-markets/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-biological-markets/
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        And markets are doing great in failed / non-existent states, are they? They aren't. Only literal piracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_off_the_coast_of_Somalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_off_the_coast_of_Somali...
        9864250 4y ago
        I don't think Somalia can properly be considered to have been stateless, but as you seem to think so, maybe you can explain why life expectancy, immunization, birth weight, infant mortality rate, maternal mortality rate, access to sanitation, access to at least one health facility, extreme poverty, access to radios, telephones, and TVs, and fatality due to measles all improved after the fall of Barre's government?[0] Somali privacy is extremely profitable because of the geography and shipping lanes of the Gulf of Aden, and the pirates certainly operate on a market system, even if they don't respect outsiders property rights. It's not like the US government does either. The people who have their homes destroyed by the US military have no more chance of getting compensation than the owners of cargo hijacked by Somali pirates. If we also consider governments use of asset forfeiture, taxation, fines, licence fees, etc. I think it becomes a little ridiculous to focus on the Somali pirates. There are more piracy in the Gulf of Guinea anyway, so why single out Somalia? [0]: https://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf https://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf
andrepd 4y ago
How do right to repair laws take away your choice? Genuine question. Don't they do the opposite: give you more freedom from vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence?
- 9864250 4y ago
  You are assuming they would sell a version of their product the state want them to sell (and that such a version would give you more options), rather than not sell it at all. That's not necessarily true. There are many products that are not available in different countries because they are incompatible with various regulations. Replacing consumer choice with state choice leads to less freedom for the consumer. There are often trade-offs that need to be made with regard to the repairability of a product (e.g. a phone's thickness / water resistance / ability to replace the battery), and for the state to interfere in those decisions by force leads to fewer options for the consumer. Additionally, we should keep in mind that the state has no incentive to help consumers, as they don't have the resources to lobby effectively. I think "right to repair" laws are primarily about helping some companies at the expense of their competitors and customers.
  - alwayslikethis 4y ago
    That's what would happen if this is done in some small market, like let's say Qatar. With large markets the situation is rather different, since it is so essential for the companies to sell in these markets. Do you think Apple would no longer sell iPhones because of the USB C law or right to repair laws? Also, some of these laws are aimed at the externalities caused by these corporations, such as e-waste and computing disenfranchisement (well, at least partly). I am not generally supportive of governement regulation as solutions to our problems, but when the adversaries are as resourceful as Apple or Microsoft, the tradeoffs are different and we have no other way to realisticallt fix these issues.
    - 9864250 4y ago
      It depends on how burdensome they expect the law to be. Apple did decide to comply with the USB-C law, but I'm sure there are hypothetical laws they would not comply with. In such a case, I expect apple would be willing to spend enough money lobbying against the law to make sure it never becomes law in a large market. I'm not sure who lobbied against and in favour of the USB-C, or who is harmed and helped by it.
torben-friis 4y ago
How is setting a required standard for product support “giving control over bodies”? Would you consider banning companies from putting carcinogenic compounds in food control over your body as well?
- 9864250 4y ago
  The state telling people they have to be blind or move to a different country is unquestionably controlling their bodies. The FDA kills thousands of people by not letting them access drugs and medical devices. I cannot understand wanting more of that. Even if we ignore the consequences, it's simply wrong for anyone to override a consenting adult's choices over their body. It doesn't matter if it's about implants, drugs, abortions, carcinogens, etc.
  - torben-friis 4y ago
    > Even if we ignore the consequences, it's simply wrong for anyone to override a consenting adult's choices over their body. It is a pretty evident fact that, in the modern world, a person can not possibly have enough knowledge, understanding, and available time to make enough informed choices for their own survival. Quick! you're in a shop looking for shampoo and it contains ammonium lauryl sulfate. Is it a valid surfactant, or a ticket to an early grave? No idea? Tough luck buddy. What I described above is not an absurd exaggeration, is the world we once lived in. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._A._Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._A._Bailey Behind the tempting ideal of personal responsibility lies the flip side of leaving people unarmed and open to manipulation. Everything has tradeoffs, and our system might harm some people when access to reviewed products doesn't come soon enough for them. This damage is far counterweighted by not having your daughter's jaw fall off because she chose the wrong brand of lipstick.
    - 9864250 4y ago
      That's frankly a ridiculous straw man. A person can likewise not have enough knowledge, understanding, or time to make informed choices for other's survival. The difference is that when someone makes the wrong choice about their own survival, they die. When someone makes the wrong choice about other people's survival, other people die. Nobody is arguing against listening to experts or using processes to make safety decisions. I'm just saying that you should not enforce your judgement on other people. I don't object to the state or anyone else making recommendations or to other people following them. Everyone is ultimately responsible for deciding whom to trust. If you trust the state, you should be free to defer to their judgement, as you will be the one to pay the ultimate price if you are wrong. If I trust some other organization, I should be free to do the same. The state's ability to enforce its judgement by means of violence doesn't make it more likely to be correct. Might dosen't make right when it comes to science or individual trade-offs. If I'm in the shop buying shampoo, I can look for the name or logo of an organization that I trust to determine the safety of products. If I need a medical product that the FDA has not approved, and I'm unable to travel aboard? What I'm I supposed to do? Die like thousands of people before me[0]? Is that just "Tough luck buddy" to you because your ideology is more important than my life and freedom? [0]: https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-fda-drug-monopoly-let-patients-choose-their-medicines# https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-fda-drug-monopoly-let-pa...

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

> No, the solution is not to give the state even more power over peoples bodies. You seem to hold that truth to be self-evident, but I don't think that it is. Why do you say that? Do you think that the state has no role in making markets, in this case or others?

9864250 4y ago
My reason for my first sentence is my last sentence, which I do hold as self-evident. I probably think it's wrong to take choice away from individuals and give it to the state, in part for a similar reason you think it's wrong to take choice away from individuals and give it to me.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  So, you're pro Methamphetamine, and and pro unregulated industrial pollution. Got it. Again, do you think that the state has no role in making markets, in this case or others?
  - 9864250 4y ago
    Of course I'm against the war on drugs. I'm not a fan of industrial pollution, whether it's regulated or not. No, I don't think the state should play any role in making markets, in this case or others.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      > No, I don't think the state should play any role in making markets, Markets only exist due to the rule of law. So also you know nothing about markets, and are pro-warlord. Got it.
      - 9864250 4y ago
        Market-like structures predate humanity[0], nobody invented or created markets. States only exist because of force. The state is literally the warlord who won, so it's you who are pro-warlord. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-biological-markets/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2017-biological-markets/
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        And markets are doing great in failed / non-existent states, are they? They aren't. Only literal piracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_off_the_coast_of_Somalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_off_the_coast_of_Somali...
        9864250 4y ago
        I don't think Somalia can properly be considered to have been stateless, but as you seem to think so, maybe you can explain why life expectancy, immunization, birth weight, infant mortality rate, maternal mortality rate, access to sanitation, access to at least one health facility, extreme poverty, access to radios, telephones, and TVs, and fatality due to measles all improved after the fall of Barre's government?[0] Somali privacy is extremely profitable because of the geography and shipping lanes of the Gulf of Aden, and the pirates certainly operate on a market system, even if they don't respect outsiders property rights. It's not like the US government does either. The people who have their homes destroyed by the US military have no more chance of getting compensation than the owners of cargo hijacked by Somali pirates. If we also consider governments use of asset forfeiture, taxation, fines, licence fees, etc. I think it becomes a little ridiculous to focus on the Somali pirates. There are more piracy in the Gulf of Guinea anyway, so why single out Somalia? [0]: https://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf https://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

andrepd 4y ago

How do right to repair laws take away your choice? Genuine question. Don't they do the opposite: give you more freedom from vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence?

9864250 4y ago
You are assuming they would sell a version of their product the state want them to sell (and that such a version would give you more options), rather than not sell it at all. That's not necessarily true. There are many products that are not available in different countries because they are incompatible with various regulations. Replacing consumer choice with state choice leads to less freedom for the consumer. There are often trade-offs that need to be made with regard to the repairability of a product (e.g. a phone's thickness / water resistance / ability to replace the battery), and for the state to interfere in those decisions by force leads to fewer options for the consumer. Additionally, we should keep in mind that the state has no incentive to help consumers, as they don't have the resources to lobby effectively. I think "right to repair" laws are primarily about helping some companies at the expense of their competitors and customers.
- alwayslikethis 4y ago
  That's what would happen if this is done in some small market, like let's say Qatar. With large markets the situation is rather different, since it is so essential for the companies to sell in these markets. Do you think Apple would no longer sell iPhones because of the USB C law or right to repair laws? Also, some of these laws are aimed at the externalities caused by these corporations, such as e-waste and computing disenfranchisement (well, at least partly). I am not generally supportive of governement regulation as solutions to our problems, but when the adversaries are as resourceful as Apple or Microsoft, the tradeoffs are different and we have no other way to realisticallt fix these issues.
  - 9864250 4y ago
    It depends on how burdensome they expect the law to be. Apple did decide to comply with the USB-C law, but I'm sure there are hypothetical laws they would not comply with. In such a case, I expect apple would be willing to spend enough money lobbying against the law to make sure it never becomes law in a large market. I'm not sure who lobbied against and in favour of the USB-C, or who is harmed and helped by it.

torben-friis 4y ago

How is setting a required standard for product support “giving control over bodies”? Would you consider banning companies from putting carcinogenic compounds in food control over your body as well?

9864250 4y ago
The state telling people they have to be blind or move to a different country is unquestionably controlling their bodies. The FDA kills thousands of people by not letting them access drugs and medical devices. I cannot understand wanting more of that. Even if we ignore the consequences, it's simply wrong for anyone to override a consenting adult's choices over their body. It doesn't matter if it's about implants, drugs, abortions, carcinogens, etc.
- torben-friis 4y ago
  > Even if we ignore the consequences, it's simply wrong for anyone to override a consenting adult's choices over their body. It is a pretty evident fact that, in the modern world, a person can not possibly have enough knowledge, understanding, and available time to make enough informed choices for their own survival. Quick! you're in a shop looking for shampoo and it contains ammonium lauryl sulfate. Is it a valid surfactant, or a ticket to an early grave? No idea? Tough luck buddy. What I described above is not an absurd exaggeration, is the world we once lived in. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._A._Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._A._Bailey Behind the tempting ideal of personal responsibility lies the flip side of leaving people unarmed and open to manipulation. Everything has tradeoffs, and our system might harm some people when access to reviewed products doesn't come soon enough for them. This damage is far counterweighted by not having your daughter's jaw fall off because she chose the wrong brand of lipstick.
  - 9864250 4y ago
    That's frankly a ridiculous straw man. A person can likewise not have enough knowledge, understanding, or time to make informed choices for other's survival. The difference is that when someone makes the wrong choice about their own survival, they die. When someone makes the wrong choice about other people's survival, other people die. Nobody is arguing against listening to experts or using processes to make safety decisions. I'm just saying that you should not enforce your judgement on other people. I don't object to the state or anyone else making recommendations or to other people following them. Everyone is ultimately responsible for deciding whom to trust. If you trust the state, you should be free to defer to their judgement, as you will be the one to pay the ultimate price if you are wrong. If I trust some other organization, I should be free to do the same. The state's ability to enforce its judgement by means of violence doesn't make it more likely to be correct. Might dosen't make right when it comes to science or individual trade-offs. If I'm in the shop buying shampoo, I can look for the name or logo of an organization that I trust to determine the safety of products. If I need a medical product that the FDA has not approved, and I'm unable to travel aboard? What I'm I supposed to do? Die like thousands of people before me[0]? Is that just "Tough luck buddy" to you because your ideology is more important than my life and freedom? [0]: https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-fda-drug-monopoly-let-patients-choose-their-medicines# https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-fda-drug-monopoly-let-pa...