[disruptthelaw]

I like fixing things rather than discarding so I’m in favor of the underlying principle. But I’d prefer a free-market solution rather than a regulatory one. I’d rather someone creates a private civil society organization whose gives a stamp of approval for products that meet the repair standard. The market can decide to pay a slight premium for products that go through approval process. I don’t see why this standard should be forced on everyone, and it create more regulatory complexity, more government overhead to enforce, and so on.

[minikites]

>I’d rather someone creates a private civil society organization whose gives a stamp of approval for products that meet the repair standard.

Many industries only have a handful of firms, it wouldn't be difficult for them to collude and entirely ignore a private civil society organization. Government has the power of enforcement, which is a necessary component of this goal.

[disruptthelaw]

Why does it have to be imposed and enforced. If you think about it, this law reduces profit for firms which will get pushed back to consumers in the form of price. Why not let those consumers who want to pay that “tax” have the choice. And I don’t see how collusion comes into it, the rating organization I propose loses credibility unless it’s considered objective so it’s incentives to work for consumers.

Enforcing this rule is like forcing all meat manufacturers to be Kosher. As it stands those who want to eat kosher can opt to pay the extra “kosher tax” which goes to the beth din, a private organization that confirms products are kosher. Why should non Jews pays that tax. If someone would rather pay less for a product that he can’t fix, why deny him that choice.

[rdedev]

Another benifit of right to repair is increasing the lifespan of electronic devices by making sure that people can buy the necessary parts and blueprints to fix their device. While something like this is much better to reduce our e waste, it's not of any benifit to the customer or company in the short term. This is why I think any mom regulatory solutions will not work

[minikites]

>Why does it have to be imposed and enforced.

Because it won't happen otherwise. The evidence is easily seen in the current state of these markets. If a company wanted to do this voluntarily, they already would have.

[disruptthelaw]

Yeah because such a company would make less profit because people wouldn’t have to replace their products as often. But having a private industry body ensures that company that does opt to make their product repairable get duly accredited. Then if you want to buy this more expensive device then you have the choice. If not enough people are willing to pay the premium then maybe this solution isn’t as urgent as we think and isn’t work the regulatory overhead and increased product cost

[cryptgno]

The major companies steering the market likely just won’t participate, leading to no meaningful change whatsoever.

[anoncake]

It's pointless to argue that regulation is theoretically not necessary when it empirically is.

[hanniabu]

This has never been a good solution

[dmos62]

Free market approach breaks down when people don't have a choice (all competition behaves the same) or they're too easily influenced by marketing (they're manipulated into buying products that are less consumer friendly). Regulation done right protects consumers and, equally importantly, fosters competition, which is eassential for a healthy capitalist society.

[deregulateMed]

It's great how we all know which company you are describing.

I wish humans would find these marketing tactics unethical. Instead they are manipulated by them.

[dmos62]

Um, I'm not describing a specific company. Abusive marketing and anti-competitive practices are common. Which one are you thinking of?