5 ms·

>>I would love to see some EU legislation Why does the EU believe every facet of life needs to be ordered and control by government regulation, is there any a

>>I would love to see some EU legislation Why does the EU believe every facet of life needs to be ordered and control by government regulation, is there any area of life at all in the EU that should be free from government interference? That is an honest question because every time anything comes up the first response from citizens of the EU is to declare government should be the right and proper resolution to the problem

happymellon 4y ago
Because leaving it "to the market" is always a race to the bottom, and there ends up being no choice on voting with your wallet.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  You do know that Touch Screen got included in Cars due to government regulations right? The government mandated Backup Camera's and once you had to put in a screen to serve as display for the backup camera then it only makes since to use that screen for more and more things This is yet another unintended consequence of government regulations, where by now people want to use government regulation to "fix" the problems the regulation caused in the first place, which will cause even more problems as regulation always does >>"to the market" is always a race to the bottom Absolutely false, the market more than anything in human society has driven more wealth, and higher standards of living. If it incredibly ignorant to say the market is a "race the to bottom" backed by ZERO data or facts
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    Nobody ever demanded touch screens. Cars already had navigation built in that had no touch screens nor a need for them. Car companies choosing cheap, substandard designs to save a buck is something the car companies decided on. The market being a race to the bottom is visible in every single space where only a few companies control an entire industry. From supermarkets to cars, from soft drinks to tech, when competition dies down market regulation is the only way to get the interest or the general population taken care of. I'm 100% certain PepsiCo and Big Tobacco would market to toddlers if we allowed them to. Car companies have started to move to electric not because Tesla's cars were such a good business model but because governments are moving to ban internal combustion engines somewhere within the next decade; regulation is forcing these companies to innovate in ways that don't provide an immediate financial profit. Obviously a state controlled market will always fail, but a purely free market has proven to only serve the richest of the rich. Balanced regulation is key. In my opinion, cars that put common driving controls on touch screen a should never been allowed on the road.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>where only a few companies control an entire industry. I feel like we are now into the absurd... You know what kills competition. REGULATION. Every industry where you can cite limited competition I can tell you the regulations that killed that competition. Unregulated industries have LOTS of innovation and competition. Regulated industries have slow innovation and no competition. Free market work because of competition, no competition no free market. >>Car companies have started to move to electric not because Tesla's cars were such a good business model but because governments are moving to ban internal combustion engines somewhere within the next decade; This is a complete revisionist history, and it is very very very very unlikely any nation will actually ban ICE cars in the next decade. While I will not deny regulation played some role in the speed of transition, it is unlikely that role would be more than moving the needle more 5 years ahead of where it would have naturally gone anyway. Electric cars where being made long before the Tesla, Tesla simply timed the market correctly at the same time technology got to the point where an BEV was even possible. To put 100% of the transition to BEV on government is simply false, and in fact I can make a good case that government accelerating the natural progression is in the long run going to be HARMFUL and may even set back the transition in many ways
      - tremon 4y ago
        And every industry where you can cite zero regulation I can tell you the industry killed lots of people or destroyed ecosystems. Unregulated industries have LOTS of leeway to prioritize profits over their environment. Case in point: look up the article yesterday about Salt Lake being drained for agriculture, risking millions of homes' access to drinking water.
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        There is no fair market without someone ensuring a fair market. Before the FDA grocers were selling milk to families which "was routinely adulterated with water, rotten eggs, flour, burnt sugar and other adulterants with the finished product then marketed falsely as "pure country milk" or "Orange County Milk". People like you went on about how regulation would kill the industry and hurt the market, but what was really killed was more than 8,000 infants (ibn one year alone)[0]. Industry does not care about your life or your family or babies because they have no feelings. They exist to compete and win, at any cost. Without something (democratic government is a good option for this) looking out for consumers, and for the other market players, your Ayn Randian fantasy will come about, and it will not be the utopia of consumer choice and meritocracy, it will be the later 1800s all over again, with most people poor to the point they are feeding their children milk with plaster in it, and a few robber barons controlling entire industries and killing competition before it can compete. Do not look at 'free markets' with some rose colored glasses, because without ensuring industry deals with externalities and without ensuring that competition can happen by preventing on company from owning entire supply chains or cartels setting prices and preventing innovation, then the market would not be fair a t all, and most people's lives would be exponentially more miserable. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - wolrah 4y ago
    > You do know that Touch Screen got included in Cars due to government regulations right? The government mandated Backup Camera's and once you had to put in a screen to serve as display for the backup camera then it only makes since to use that screen for more and more things Backup cameras were mandated in the US in 2018. Almost every vehicle on the market had a touchscreen years before that. The few vehicles I can think of that didn't yet have a screen as standard by that point got in-mirror camera displays to comply. A government regulation that was announced in 2014 and took effect in 2018 had nothing to do with my 2015 Fiesta, which does not have a backup camera, having the same touch screen a 2010 model had. Ford introduced MyFordTouch in 2010. Chrysler's Uconnect system came out in 2011, GM's various systems (CUE, MyLink, etc) in 2012, and of course the big daddy of stupid touch-focused designs the Tesla Model S came out in 2013. All of these were well established across entire lineups by the time backup camera regulations were being discussed. The primary reason for the current state of automotive touch interfaces is entirely capitalism doing what it does. Touch interfaces are more expensive than a few buttons, but they can replace hundreds of individual controls and components that all have their own design, testing, and production requirements with one where almost everything about it can be changed on the fly. A model that offers options for heated seats as well as heated/cooled seats means you have three different sets of buttons for whatever panel those go in, three different sets of control boards, etc. With touch controls, as bad as they are to use those three variants are now effectively free to the manufacturer. They "cost" a few if()s in software. Regulation is in fact the only reason this nonsense hasn't gotten even stupider. Tesla's new models have a set of hidden controls for drive mode selection and hazard lights, which are primarily intended to be controlled via the touch screen, because they are legally required to have something that would work without the screen. https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-s-plaid-shifter/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-s-plaid-shifter/ Let me repeat that, Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is ruining Tesla's freedom to do the stupidest things...
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is ruining Tesla's freedom to do the stupidest things You think the stupidest thing, I am not anti-touch screen like most here are. In-fact I replaced alot of the factory buttons in my older car with a Aftermarket Large display that is basically a huge android tablet that controls alot of the car functions (including HVAC) I prefer touch controls. Why the government preventing me from choosing the control I like the best, and then you can feel free to not buy a car that does not have physical controls. That is the market. that is how it should be.
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    > Absolutely false, the market more than anything in human society has driven more wealth, and higher standards of living. If it incredibly ignorant to say the market is a "race the to bottom" backed by ZERO data or facts A rational actor tries to maximize profits, and that involves either cost-cutting while minimally passing on cost savings; or disruption. Disruption is what has driven wealth, but an unregulated market is terrible at encouraging risk taking. The easier path is to make things cheaper (to make), and the evidence is every off-shored manufacturing and industry over decades. Now you’ll say that this cost increase is due to regulations; but the argument against that is even Chinese labor has become expensive and that’s simply due to a rising middle class. The market. But like the US once had, they have the manufacturing knowledge and scale that we’ve foolishly given up a long time ago so US businesses can’t simply lift and shift. To the point where I doubt our ability to wage a long-term war.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    > the market more than anything in human society has driven more wealth, and higher standards of living. Competition occurs because it is promoted through regulations. Contracts, private property, stock markets, etc. all exist due to regulations. If competition tends to stop (e.g. a company cornering a market), then regulators can step in to change things so that competition is once more possible. If your goal is to increase wealth and standards of living, you should support regulations making that possible.
  - watwut 4y ago
    EU does not require backup or any other camera and cars frequently don't have it.
  - antifa 4y ago
    I've used only 3 cars with backup cameras and none were touch screens.
- rafale 4y ago
  Like the iPhone for example? Or maybe the Porsche 911 GT3 RS? Markets have a lot of segments. Government should regulate the minimum absolute necessity. Like seatbelts... who were ironically a market invention/idea first.
  - messe 4y ago
    Sure, and precisely what the "minimum necessary" entails is up for debate. The EU just believes that minimum to be higher than you do.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - rafale 4y ago
      My personal opinion on this is that the minimum should protect me from others. This doesn't even include seatbelts I gave as example because I can (realistically) only hurt myself. This would include gas emissions, noise limits, headlight angle/strength rules, ... Certainly not the dashboard layout.
bspammer 4y ago
The market is clearly not doing a good enough job in this case, and the problem is one of safety.
mycocola 4y ago
What is government for, if not for solving the issues of the populace it is governing?
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    I am generally pleased with the EU's approach to defending me against pollution and traffic accidents.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      That however was not my opening inquiry which was "is there any area of life at all in the EU that should be free from government interference?"
      - CodexArcana 4y ago
        That's not what you said. You said "why does the EU believe that every part of life needs government regulation." And it's because, as Milton Friedman once said, "a corporation's responsibility is to make as much money for the stockholders as possible." Without a counter balance you wouldn't have seat belts, crumple zones, fuel efficiency standards, the list goes on and on. Safety is not the responsibility of the corporation. Their only priority is profit.
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        >>as Milton Friedman once said, "a corporation's responsibility is to make as much money for the stockholders as possible." That is an over simplification of his Position, and often misused as you have here, just like people that misuse Poppers paradox of tolerance to justify censorship of people they dislike, you misuse Friedman to criticize a economic system you dislike >>Safety is not the responsibility of the corporation. Yes and no. They still face liability if not protected by the government. Which often time government regulation come with liability shields protecting said corporations that is why large corporations like regulation; as it often prevents competition while at the same time protecting them from liability Further they face competition based on safety, automotive companies compete widely on the safety records of their vehicles with many marketing the features and safety testing results that exceed government requirements, this means there is a MARKET driver to increase safety and it is not just government regulations that drive safety. Infact some automakers are at odds over the government because technology in the area of safety (lighting is the big one) is changing faster than regulations can keep up and many manufacturers would like to make changes to their cars that would make them safer but are prohibited because of regulations.
messe 4y ago
Generally, it only tends to come up in any area where the market seems to be failing consumers. This is interpreted as an externality that the market doesn't account for (in this case consumer safety, in the case of USB-C charging e-waste), which regulations are then introduced to correct for.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >>in this case consumer safety Ironic since safety laws is what put the screens in the cars in the first place, the regulation requiring backup camera's which required large screen to show the picture. >>in the case of USB-C charging e-waste lol, yea that is not the reason for USB-C regulation, nor was that needed at all, and that will handicap either the EU or global innovation. What ever comes next to replace USB-C either now will never be made and will be stuck (I hope not, because USB-C is terrible) or the EU will be left behind has the rest of the world moves on to the better thing
  - messe 4y ago
    Amazingly bad takes. > Ironic since safety laws is what put the screens in the cars in the first place Screens themselves aren't the issue. They didn't mandate touch screens, or the removal of non-touch controls. (EDIT: in fact, the removal of non-touch controls in place of touch controls is a perfect example of the market resulting in a race-to-the-bottom cost-saving measure that you're in denial of in your other comments). > lol, yea that is not the reason for USB-C regulation Care to elaborate on what the reason is then? Because that's the reason I've seen given. > What ever comes next to replace USB-C either now will never be made and will be stuck This is misleading. The law is flexible in that regard, and in fact the commission will be required to regularly amend the law. > or the EU will be left behind has the rest of the world moves on to the better thing Fortunately, the EU market is too big to ignore.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      Talk about Amazingly bad takes. >They didn't mandate touch screens ofcourse... they just mandated a large expensive screen that naturally the automakers and consumers would love to have right up front visible to the driver for about 10secs per use of the vehicle and be used for nothing else ever. This is the kind of "forethought" that makes for terrible regulation, and unintended consequences, I bet you would make for a great elected official, ever consider running for office? If you are going to mandate some large and expensive be put in a predominant spot of a product, that thing is going to be used for multiple functions, it is unrealistic, and a denial of reality to expect anything less >>Care to elaborate on what the reason is then? Because that's the reason I've seen given. I am sure that is the stated reason, there is no actual data to back that up since converters to and from the various charging standards are easily available there is no reason to believe that a device having or not having USB-C contributes at all to ewaste. No one is toss out their iPhone because it has a lighting cable, and most are not even tossing the chargers as for less than $5 you can get any adapter to any other port... EU addiction to regulation is a real problem. >>Fortunately, the EU market is too big to ignore. For now, the EU economy has been largely stagnant since about 2008, Though this year seems to have has a bump largely due to inflation which means it is still flat. EU is not really a growth market for any one.
epolanski 4y ago
They should in this case, this involves road and public safety.
- vicnov 4y ago
  the ultimate safety is ban all cars and stay at home. it is always an exercise in balancing. Legislating UI seems... weird? If people feel uncomfortable driving with touch screens, they may choose not to buy cars with touch screens.
  - epolanski 4y ago
    UI in a car that makes drivers potentially more distracted. I don't care about how comfortable or uncomfortable this makes people with touch screens driving, there's large evidence for them being more dangerous.
pfortuny 4y ago
Because it is a socialist construct, despite what they may tell you. I mean that in the purely theoretical sense: the government “knows better, know everything, and solves better, and everything”, which just means “everything needs to be legislated.
manholio 4y ago
> Why does the EU believe every facet of life needs to be ordered and control by government regulation It doesn't, the author is just projecting their authoritarian nanny state fantasies. The EU regulates the internal market and sets minimal common standards for example for medication, food safety and allowed pesticides and fertilizers etc. These are necessary for the well functioning of the common market and need to be specified to a high degree of detail, otherwise states would try to cheat and flood the common market with products grown with the cheapest most toxic methods, and you wouldn't be able to remove them from your national market without breaking the free trade rules. This nature of the internal competition needs detailed regulations that states need to negotiate and specify very well (and then try to cheat anyway), and it's unlike a national unified market like the US has. This gives the appearance of over-regulation, but in reality the UE is quite neoliberal and doesn't give a fuck about your car controls.
moistly 4y ago
Because “Best Practices“ and “Interface Ergonomics“ guidelines provide excellent parameters for legislation. Why would we want anything other than the best functional design/interface for something as important as our vehicle controls?
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
Your comment is ideological nonsense. You don't mention purpose or outcomes at all, just "ordered and control by government" and "interference". Obviously it comes down to government competence but the EU has shown itself to be mostly competent. Government regulations are a last resort, not the first as you insinuate. An example is roaming charges. The EU warned phone companies that it would regulate in the absence of reforms. They did nothing and the EU rolled out regulations that have benefited everyone who uses a phone across borders at almost no additional cost. Very inexpensive plans are still available as always (for example I have a 2.65 euro plan that gives me 1GB of data each month, with full EU roaming). In respect to cars, if there are safety regulations that err on the side of being a bit onerous, then so be it, but there's no evidence they are problematic. An example is my 2016 Kia Rio. I paid approximately $12,500 (about 11,000 euros at the time). The EU mandates that all new cars must have tire pressure monitoring, anti-lock braking and stability control. Because this is existing, mature technology the added cost to the car is marginal, and very cheap cars are still available, such as my Kia. Meanwhile, those car features have definitely saved my life on 4 separate occasions. Free markets are not some panacea for the world's ills. They work well in most cases but since there is no perfect market there will always be market regulation. The extent and the development of smart regulations requires good goverment, and that's where our responsibility to be politically engaged comes in. Government is a tool like any other, imperfect as it is, but we can influence its form.

happymellon 4y ago

Because leaving it "to the market" is always a race to the bottom, and there ends up being no choice on voting with your wallet.

phpisthebest 4y ago
You do know that Touch Screen got included in Cars due to government regulations right? The government mandated Backup Camera's and once you had to put in a screen to serve as display for the backup camera then it only makes since to use that screen for more and more things This is yet another unintended consequence of government regulations, where by now people want to use government regulation to "fix" the problems the regulation caused in the first place, which will cause even more problems as regulation always does >>"to the market" is always a race to the bottom Absolutely false, the market more than anything in human society has driven more wealth, and higher standards of living. If it incredibly ignorant to say the market is a "race the to bottom" backed by ZERO data or facts
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Nobody ever demanded touch screens. Cars already had navigation built in that had no touch screens nor a need for them. Car companies choosing cheap, substandard designs to save a buck is something the car companies decided on. The market being a race to the bottom is visible in every single space where only a few companies control an entire industry. From supermarkets to cars, from soft drinks to tech, when competition dies down market regulation is the only way to get the interest or the general population taken care of. I'm 100% certain PepsiCo and Big Tobacco would market to toddlers if we allowed them to. Car companies have started to move to electric not because Tesla's cars were such a good business model but because governments are moving to ban internal combustion engines somewhere within the next decade; regulation is forcing these companies to innovate in ways that don't provide an immediate financial profit. Obviously a state controlled market will always fail, but a purely free market has proven to only serve the richest of the rich. Balanced regulation is key. In my opinion, cars that put common driving controls on touch screen a should never been allowed on the road.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>where only a few companies control an entire industry. I feel like we are now into the absurd... You know what kills competition. REGULATION. Every industry where you can cite limited competition I can tell you the regulations that killed that competition. Unregulated industries have LOTS of innovation and competition. Regulated industries have slow innovation and no competition. Free market work because of competition, no competition no free market. >>Car companies have started to move to electric not because Tesla's cars were such a good business model but because governments are moving to ban internal combustion engines somewhere within the next decade; This is a complete revisionist history, and it is very very very very unlikely any nation will actually ban ICE cars in the next decade. While I will not deny regulation played some role in the speed of transition, it is unlikely that role would be more than moving the needle more 5 years ahead of where it would have naturally gone anyway. Electric cars where being made long before the Tesla, Tesla simply timed the market correctly at the same time technology got to the point where an BEV was even possible. To put 100% of the transition to BEV on government is simply false, and in fact I can make a good case that government accelerating the natural progression is in the long run going to be HARMFUL and may even set back the transition in many ways
    - tremon 4y ago
      And every industry where you can cite zero regulation I can tell you the industry killed lots of people or destroyed ecosystems. Unregulated industries have LOTS of leeway to prioritize profits over their environment. Case in point: look up the article yesterday about Salt Lake being drained for agriculture, risking millions of homes' access to drinking water.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      There is no fair market without someone ensuring a fair market. Before the FDA grocers were selling milk to families which "was routinely adulterated with water, rotten eggs, flour, burnt sugar and other adulterants with the finished product then marketed falsely as "pure country milk" or "Orange County Milk". People like you went on about how regulation would kill the industry and hurt the market, but what was really killed was more than 8,000 infants (ibn one year alone)[0]. Industry does not care about your life or your family or babies because they have no feelings. They exist to compete and win, at any cost. Without something (democratic government is a good option for this) looking out for consumers, and for the other market players, your Ayn Randian fantasy will come about, and it will not be the utopia of consumer choice and meritocracy, it will be the later 1800s all over again, with most people poor to the point they are feeding their children milk with plaster in it, and a few robber barons controlling entire industries and killing competition before it can compete. Do not look at 'free markets' with some rose colored glasses, because without ensuring industry deals with externalities and without ensuring that competition can happen by preventing on company from owning entire supply chains or cartels setting prices and preventing innovation, then the market would not be fair a t all, and most people's lives would be exponentially more miserable. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wolrah 4y ago
  > You do know that Touch Screen got included in Cars due to government regulations right? The government mandated Backup Camera's and once you had to put in a screen to serve as display for the backup camera then it only makes since to use that screen for more and more things Backup cameras were mandated in the US in 2018. Almost every vehicle on the market had a touchscreen years before that. The few vehicles I can think of that didn't yet have a screen as standard by that point got in-mirror camera displays to comply. A government regulation that was announced in 2014 and took effect in 2018 had nothing to do with my 2015 Fiesta, which does not have a backup camera, having the same touch screen a 2010 model had. Ford introduced MyFordTouch in 2010. Chrysler's Uconnect system came out in 2011, GM's various systems (CUE, MyLink, etc) in 2012, and of course the big daddy of stupid touch-focused designs the Tesla Model S came out in 2013. All of these were well established across entire lineups by the time backup camera regulations were being discussed. The primary reason for the current state of automotive touch interfaces is entirely capitalism doing what it does. Touch interfaces are more expensive than a few buttons, but they can replace hundreds of individual controls and components that all have their own design, testing, and production requirements with one where almost everything about it can be changed on the fly. A model that offers options for heated seats as well as heated/cooled seats means you have three different sets of buttons for whatever panel those go in, three different sets of control boards, etc. With touch controls, as bad as they are to use those three variants are now effectively free to the manufacturer. They "cost" a few if()s in software. Regulation is in fact the only reason this nonsense hasn't gotten even stupider. Tesla's new models have a set of hidden controls for drive mode selection and hazard lights, which are primarily intended to be controlled via the touch screen, because they are legally required to have something that would work without the screen. https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-s-plaid-shifter/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-s-plaid-shifter/ Let me repeat that, Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is ruining Tesla's freedom to do the stupidest things...
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>Tesla does not want to have these controls, the only reason they have them is because regulation forces them to. Tell me again how the big bad government is ruining Tesla's freedom to do the stupidest things You think the stupidest thing, I am not anti-touch screen like most here are. In-fact I replaced alot of the factory buttons in my older car with a Aftermarket Large display that is basically a huge android tablet that controls alot of the car functions (including HVAC) I prefer touch controls. Why the government preventing me from choosing the control I like the best, and then you can feel free to not buy a car that does not have physical controls. That is the market. that is how it should be.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  > Absolutely false, the market more than anything in human society has driven more wealth, and higher standards of living. If it incredibly ignorant to say the market is a "race the to bottom" backed by ZERO data or facts A rational actor tries to maximize profits, and that involves either cost-cutting while minimally passing on cost savings; or disruption. Disruption is what has driven wealth, but an unregulated market is terrible at encouraging risk taking. The easier path is to make things cheaper (to make), and the evidence is every off-shored manufacturing and industry over decades. Now you’ll say that this cost increase is due to regulations; but the argument against that is even Chinese labor has become expensive and that’s simply due to a rising middle class. The market. But like the US once had, they have the manufacturing knowledge and scale that we’ve foolishly given up a long time ago so US businesses can’t simply lift and shift. To the point where I doubt our ability to wage a long-term war.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > the market more than anything in human society has driven more wealth, and higher standards of living. Competition occurs because it is promoted through regulations. Contracts, private property, stock markets, etc. all exist due to regulations. If competition tends to stop (e.g. a company cornering a market), then regulators can step in to change things so that competition is once more possible. If your goal is to increase wealth and standards of living, you should support regulations making that possible.
- watwut 4y ago
  EU does not require backup or any other camera and cars frequently don't have it.
- antifa 4y ago
  I've used only 3 cars with backup cameras and none were touch screens.
rafale 4y ago
Like the iPhone for example? Or maybe the Porsche 911 GT3 RS? Markets have a lot of segments. Government should regulate the minimum absolute necessity. Like seatbelts... who were ironically a market invention/idea first.
- messe 4y ago
  Sure, and precisely what the "minimum necessary" entails is up for debate. The EU just believes that minimum to be higher than you do.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - rafale 4y ago
    My personal opinion on this is that the minimum should protect me from others. This doesn't even include seatbelts I gave as example because I can (realistically) only hurt myself. This would include gas emissions, noise limits, headlight angle/strength rules, ... Certainly not the dashboard layout.

bspammer 4y ago

The market is clearly not doing a good enough job in this case, and the problem is one of safety.

mycocola 4y ago

What is government for, if not for solving the issues of the populace it is governing?

phpisthebest 4y ago
[flagged]
- Symbiote 4y ago
  I am generally pleased with the EU's approach to defending me against pollution and traffic accidents.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    That however was not my opening inquiry which was "is there any area of life at all in the EU that should be free from government interference?"
    - CodexArcana 4y ago
      That's not what you said. You said "why does the EU believe that every part of life needs government regulation." And it's because, as Milton Friedman once said, "a corporation's responsibility is to make as much money for the stockholders as possible." Without a counter balance you wouldn't have seat belts, crumple zones, fuel efficiency standards, the list goes on and on. Safety is not the responsibility of the corporation. Their only priority is profit.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        >>as Milton Friedman once said, "a corporation's responsibility is to make as much money for the stockholders as possible." That is an over simplification of his Position, and often misused as you have here, just like people that misuse Poppers paradox of tolerance to justify censorship of people they dislike, you misuse Friedman to criticize a economic system you dislike >>Safety is not the responsibility of the corporation. Yes and no. They still face liability if not protected by the government. Which often time government regulation come with liability shields protecting said corporations that is why large corporations like regulation; as it often prevents competition while at the same time protecting them from liability Further they face competition based on safety, automotive companies compete widely on the safety records of their vehicles with many marketing the features and safety testing results that exceed government requirements, this means there is a MARKET driver to increase safety and it is not just government regulations that drive safety. Infact some automakers are at odds over the government because technology in the area of safety (lighting is the big one) is changing faster than regulations can keep up and many manufacturers would like to make changes to their cars that would make them safer but are prohibited because of regulations.

messe 4y ago

Generally, it only tends to come up in any area where the market seems to be failing consumers. This is interpreted as an externality that the market doesn't account for (in this case consumer safety, in the case of USB-C charging e-waste), which regulations are then introduced to correct for.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>>in this case consumer safety Ironic since safety laws is what put the screens in the cars in the first place, the regulation requiring backup camera's which required large screen to show the picture. >>in the case of USB-C charging e-waste lol, yea that is not the reason for USB-C regulation, nor was that needed at all, and that will handicap either the EU or global innovation. What ever comes next to replace USB-C either now will never be made and will be stuck (I hope not, because USB-C is terrible) or the EU will be left behind has the rest of the world moves on to the better thing
- messe 4y ago
  Amazingly bad takes. > Ironic since safety laws is what put the screens in the cars in the first place Screens themselves aren't the issue. They didn't mandate touch screens, or the removal of non-touch controls. (EDIT: in fact, the removal of non-touch controls in place of touch controls is a perfect example of the market resulting in a race-to-the-bottom cost-saving measure that you're in denial of in your other comments). > lol, yea that is not the reason for USB-C regulation Care to elaborate on what the reason is then? Because that's the reason I've seen given. > What ever comes next to replace USB-C either now will never be made and will be stuck This is misleading. The law is flexible in that regard, and in fact the commission will be required to regularly amend the law. > or the EU will be left behind has the rest of the world moves on to the better thing Fortunately, the EU market is too big to ignore.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Talk about Amazingly bad takes. >They didn't mandate touch screens ofcourse... they just mandated a large expensive screen that naturally the automakers and consumers would love to have right up front visible to the driver for about 10secs per use of the vehicle and be used for nothing else ever. This is the kind of "forethought" that makes for terrible regulation, and unintended consequences, I bet you would make for a great elected official, ever consider running for office? If you are going to mandate some large and expensive be put in a predominant spot of a product, that thing is going to be used for multiple functions, it is unrealistic, and a denial of reality to expect anything less >>Care to elaborate on what the reason is then? Because that's the reason I've seen given. I am sure that is the stated reason, there is no actual data to back that up since converters to and from the various charging standards are easily available there is no reason to believe that a device having or not having USB-C contributes at all to ewaste. No one is toss out their iPhone because it has a lighting cable, and most are not even tossing the chargers as for less than $5 you can get any adapter to any other port... EU addiction to regulation is a real problem. >>Fortunately, the EU market is too big to ignore. For now, the EU economy has been largely stagnant since about 2008, Though this year seems to have has a bump largely due to inflation which means it is still flat. EU is not really a growth market for any one.

epolanski 4y ago

They should in this case, this involves road and public safety.

vicnov 4y ago
the ultimate safety is ban all cars and stay at home. it is always an exercise in balancing. Legislating UI seems... weird? If people feel uncomfortable driving with touch screens, they may choose not to buy cars with touch screens.
- epolanski 4y ago
  UI in a car that makes drivers potentially more distracted. I don't care about how comfortable or uncomfortable this makes people with touch screens driving, there's large evidence for them being more dangerous.

pfortuny 4y ago

Because it is a socialist construct, despite what they may tell you. I mean that in the purely theoretical sense: the government “knows better, know everything, and solves better, and everything”, which just means “everything needs to be legislated.

manholio 4y ago

> Why does the EU believe every facet of life needs to be ordered and control by government regulation It doesn't, the author is just projecting their authoritarian nanny state fantasies. The EU regulates the internal market and sets minimal common standards for example for medication, food safety and allowed pesticides and fertilizers etc. These are necessary for the well functioning of the common market and need to be specified to a high degree of detail, otherwise states would try to cheat and flood the common market with products grown with the cheapest most toxic methods, and you wouldn't be able to remove them from your national market without breaking the free trade rules. This nature of the internal competition needs detailed regulations that states need to negotiate and specify very well (and then try to cheat anyway), and it's unlike a national unified market like the US has. This gives the appearance of over-regulation, but in reality the UE is quite neoliberal and doesn't give a fuck about your car controls.

moistly 4y ago

Because “Best Practices“ and “Interface Ergonomics“ guidelines provide excellent parameters for legislation. Why would we want anything other than the best functional design/interface for something as important as our vehicle controls?

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

Your comment is ideological nonsense. You don't mention purpose or outcomes at all, just "ordered and control by government" and "interference". Obviously it comes down to government competence but the EU has shown itself to be mostly competent. Government regulations are a last resort, not the first as you insinuate. An example is roaming charges. The EU warned phone companies that it would regulate in the absence of reforms. They did nothing and the EU rolled out regulations that have benefited everyone who uses a phone across borders at almost no additional cost. Very inexpensive plans are still available as always (for example I have a 2.65 euro plan that gives me 1GB of data each month, with full EU roaming). In respect to cars, if there are safety regulations that err on the side of being a bit onerous, then so be it, but there's no evidence they are problematic. An example is my 2016 Kia Rio. I paid approximately $12,500 (about 11,000 euros at the time). The EU mandates that all new cars must have tire pressure monitoring, anti-lock braking and stability control. Because this is existing, mature technology the added cost to the car is marginal, and very cheap cars are still available, such as my Kia. Meanwhile, those car features have definitely saved my life on 4 separate occasions. Free markets are not some panacea for the world's ills. They work well in most cases but since there is no perfect market there will always be market regulation. The extent and the development of smart regulations requires good goverment, and that's where our responsibility to be politically engaged comes in. Government is a tool like any other, imperfect as it is, but we can influence its form.