4 ms·

But there are options. And instead of having people chose themselves to pick these options and refuse to buy terrible phones the EU is instead saying it will us

But there are options. And instead of having people chose themselves to pick these options and refuse to buy terrible phones the EU is instead saying it will use the force of government violence against other people so that only phones of their desired non-shittiness are sold there. I really don't thinking bringing violence into this situation is called for. The EU is showing is an implicit assumption that people cannot make choices for themselves and violence must be used by the state to get them to make the correct choices. That's nasty and a very slippery slope to authoritarianism. As a human person with volition I simply chose not to buy bad, anti-consumer devices. It is possible. And I do it without the government threatening violence on my behalf.

kaba0 3y ago
Come on, what a stupid take.. what violence? Let’s also call out the EU next for “using violence” and disallows selling grinded shit as food.. capitalism doesn’t work without rules, period! It’s as per the very Adam Smith! Libertarianism is absolutely divorced from reality.
- superkuh 3y ago
  Bad food causes actual physical harm to people. This is violence. Bringing in state violence to prevent this actual physical harm makes all the sense in the world. Making a choice to buy a shitty phone with a glued in battery is not being harmed. There's no violence being done in this context. And there's no coercion involved. As for, "What violence?", how do you think laws are enforced? I hope this helps you better understand my "stupid take".
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Ok, let’s look at another example: gambling being illegal for kids. There is no physical harm being done in any way here, yet the “bad, evil EU” disallows it. And sure, there is the enforcement part of each governing agency. Calling it “violence” is just click-bait headline level nonsense.
    - superkuh 3y ago
      There are many regulations for minors that could never be applied to adults. Minors are not citizens with full rights; their activities are decided by their guardians and laws regulated minors infringe upon this lack of rights more often than not. That said, many governments and the DSM 5 do push the idea that gambling somehow invokes a lack of agency and control for the individual. In fact gambling disorder is the only medically recognized behavioral addiction (though it shouldn't be, this old wives tale is grandfathered in). It shows just how dangerous this kind of "they can't help themselves" thinking is in justifying bad laws that hurt people. Pretending that laws aren't enforced with physical force just because it is abstracted away from your daily life and experience doesn't change that it is violence. The use of physical force is the one thing governments have a monopoly over and it is what makes them governments.
  - oefnak 3y ago
    But it is bad for people... How can you not see that the government is protecting them from having to buy a new phone earlier, and the environment from easier separation of the different components? If it is a rule for all companies, it doesn't matter either way, economically speaking.
    - superkuh 3y ago
      Your implicit assumption here, a very dangerous one, is that people cannot make their own choices and need coercion backed by government violence to make the right choices of phone to buy. I acknowledge that shitty phones are shitty phones. That's why I personally have never and will not buy one. Other people's choices to buy shitty phones does not justify bringing in the government no matter how much it reduces waste. I'd love if people made that choice themselves but having the government force it is quite evil.
Levitz 3y ago
The people, themselves, are the ones electing EU officials and passing these regulations.
mftrhu 3y ago
You are the one who is bringing "violence" up. Telling people that there are standards they have to abide by before you will be willing to associate with them - before the EU, made up of multiple institutions which are voted by and represent its citizens, will allow a certain kind of devices to be sold on its market - is not violence. I have no idea how it could ever be considered "violence", given the fact that we are not talking about a law against human people - with or without volition - but against goods.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
fullspectrumdev 3y ago
Was this comment written by an LLM? You know those of us in the EU elect these people who write these laws, right? And there’s public consultations and shit?
- kevinmchugh 3y ago
  What percent of phones sold in the EU last year had user replace batteries? It seems like revealed preference is for devices without replaceable batteries.
  - oefnak 3y ago
    No, it was just less important than choosing the OS. When everything is equal, of course people prefer replaceable batteries. This rule makes all phones equal, because it is obligatory.
    - kevinmchugh 3y ago
      Samsung makes Android phones with replaceable batteries - are those the leading Android phones in the EU? How is this feature so important the government must mandate it be present in all phones, yet not the most important feature when buying a new phone?

kaba0 3y ago

Come on, what a stupid take.. what violence? Let’s also call out the EU next for “using violence” and disallows selling grinded shit as food.. capitalism doesn’t work without rules, period! It’s as per the very Adam Smith! Libertarianism is absolutely divorced from reality.

superkuh 3y ago
Bad food causes actual physical harm to people. This is violence. Bringing in state violence to prevent this actual physical harm makes all the sense in the world. Making a choice to buy a shitty phone with a glued in battery is not being harmed. There's no violence being done in this context. And there's no coercion involved. As for, "What violence?", how do you think laws are enforced? I hope this helps you better understand my "stupid take".
- kaba0 3y ago
  Ok, let’s look at another example: gambling being illegal for kids. There is no physical harm being done in any way here, yet the “bad, evil EU” disallows it. And sure, there is the enforcement part of each governing agency. Calling it “violence” is just click-bait headline level nonsense.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    There are many regulations for minors that could never be applied to adults. Minors are not citizens with full rights; their activities are decided by their guardians and laws regulated minors infringe upon this lack of rights more often than not. That said, many governments and the DSM 5 do push the idea that gambling somehow invokes a lack of agency and control for the individual. In fact gambling disorder is the only medically recognized behavioral addiction (though it shouldn't be, this old wives tale is grandfathered in). It shows just how dangerous this kind of "they can't help themselves" thinking is in justifying bad laws that hurt people. Pretending that laws aren't enforced with physical force just because it is abstracted away from your daily life and experience doesn't change that it is violence. The use of physical force is the one thing governments have a monopoly over and it is what makes them governments.
- oefnak 3y ago
  But it is bad for people... How can you not see that the government is protecting them from having to buy a new phone earlier, and the environment from easier separation of the different components? If it is a rule for all companies, it doesn't matter either way, economically speaking.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    Your implicit assumption here, a very dangerous one, is that people cannot make their own choices and need coercion backed by government violence to make the right choices of phone to buy. I acknowledge that shitty phones are shitty phones. That's why I personally have never and will not buy one. Other people's choices to buy shitty phones does not justify bringing in the government no matter how much it reduces waste. I'd love if people made that choice themselves but having the government force it is quite evil.

Levitz 3y ago

The people, themselves, are the ones electing EU officials and passing these regulations.

mftrhu 3y ago

You are the one who is bringing "violence" up. Telling people that there are standards they have to abide by before you will be willing to associate with them - before the EU, made up of multiple institutions which are voted by and represent its citizens, will allow a certain kind of devices to be sold on its market - is not violence. I have no idea how it could ever be considered "violence", given the fact that we are not talking about a law against human people - with or without volition - but against goods.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

fullspectrumdev 3y ago

Was this comment written by an LLM? You know those of us in the EU elect these people who write these laws, right? And there’s public consultations and shit?

kevinmchugh 3y ago
What percent of phones sold in the EU last year had user replace batteries? It seems like revealed preference is for devices without replaceable batteries.
- oefnak 3y ago
  No, it was just less important than choosing the OS. When everything is equal, of course people prefer replaceable batteries. This rule makes all phones equal, because it is obligatory.
  - kevinmchugh 3y ago
    Samsung makes Android phones with replaceable batteries - are those the leading Android phones in the EU? How is this feature so important the government must mandate it be present in all phones, yet not the most important feature when buying a new phone?