3 ms·
Both of your examples relate to the state, not the maker, and the state (in theory) is involving itself for the sake of the common good. Indeed, both of the pro
by alexqgb 12y ago
Both of your examples relate to the state, not the maker, and the state (in theory) is involving itself for the sake of the common good. Indeed, both of the problems behind these restrictions (criminal fraud and air pollution) are the kinds of anti-social behavior that we expect states to address.
All of this is categorically different from a private party renegotiating the well-established legal concept of ownership for the sake of private profit and ongoing exploitation.
- wbillingsley 12y agoUnfortunately, the state also cares about industry creating new costs for you. If you now have to pay $500 for what you used to be able to do yourself, GDP just went up by ($500 * market size) and a politician sleeps more comfortably about their re-election chances. If a car manufacturer shores up its profitability and that of its dealers by ensuring that everything right down to the oil change needs their licensed and authorised device, then many governments would label that "business innovation" and claim it's in the common good of the economy.