5 ms·
Well it’s quite a silly stance. We could after all let “the market” decide on whether private property is enforceable or allow “the market” to punish murderers.
by CogitoCogito 3y ago
Well it’s quite a silly stance. We could after all let “the market” decide on whether private property is enforceable or allow “the market” to punish murderers. We don’t do that because we’ve found it doesn’t work that effectively (unless your goal is inefficiency and murder).
Laws promote efficiency and progress by aligning incentives with market forces. Right to repair is a perfect example of such a low. It promotes autonomy and market competition. I find it confusing that anyone not profiting directly off the status quo would be against it. Regardless the people profiting off it are in the minority so hopefully the majority continues to push for the passage of more such laws.
- hot_gril 3y agoIt's a phone or laptop repair in question, not someone's life or living.
- CogitoCogito 3y agoI may be misunderstanding you, but how exactly is having autonomy over your phone any different over autonomy over anything else you own? Or are you consistently against people having any autonomy over their property?
- hot_gril 3y agoI can already legally do whatever I want with my own phone, as I have a right to my property, but it doesn't mean Apple is required to help me do it. And Apple has the right to design the phone and offer service the way they want. There are exceptions where this might not be right, but it's just a phone repair, not someone's life. Why should I care about Apple's rights? Aside from any argument about slippery slope, I'm a happy enough customer. Last time I've felt the need to repair an iPhone was a decade ago, and it was for a cracked screen, which wasn't expensive to repair. It seems to me like people with niche business interests are trying to force them on a market that has already decided against them.
- CharlesW 3y ago> Well it’s quite a silly stance. I guess it depends on whether you believe capitalism and that "invisible hand" stuff is silly. > It promotes autonomy and market competition. Those are good things. I want the autonomy to buy the best-for-me (safe, compact, rugged, beautiful) user experience possible, but I'm very happy that there's market competition (Fairphone, etc.) for customers who want the phone equivalent of a project car.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago> I guess it depends on whether you believe capitalism and that "invisible hand" stuff is silly. I don’t really know the claim you’re making exactly, but if you’re saying that capitalism is not about laws and regulations then yes that is quite silly. Capitalism doesn’t work without laws protecting contracts, private property (in its innumerable forms), etc. Like I said, we don’t let the market decide many things so that capitalism _is_ possible. Feel free to clarify if you didn’t mean to make that argument.
- thegrimmest 3y agoPinePhone exists, the market just doesn't care. Why should legislators force the (presumably free) market to be more like the PinePhone and less like the iPhone?
- CogitoCogito 3y agoI presume you are against anti trust laws as well as laws promoting competition?
- thegrimmest 3y agoI think we have rather different opinions on what laws are for. I think they're to facilitate a liberal ecosystem - one in which violence is delegitimized and disputes are resolved via due process. They should explicitly not try to influence the outcomes such an ecosystem produces.
- CogitoCogito 3y agoYes I guess we do disagree. I believe we should promote autonomy and efficiency (amongst other things).
- thegrimmest 3y agoIt's not "Autonomy, Efficiency, and the pursuit of Happiness" is it though?