[s1artibartfast]

Society and legislators should only forbid harmful action. Not doing something helpful is very different than doing something hurtful.

Compelling helpful action leads to all kinds of absurd conclusions.

For example, that we should we compel doctors to work more hours because anytime they spend at home is to the detriment of their patients.

[whakim]

Obviously not. If doctors can't take care of their patients within a normal working day, the answer is to have more doctors rather than make the existing ones work unsustainably long hours.

[s1artibartfast]

I wasn't suggesting that we do so, I was pointing out the absurdity of saying that not doing something for social benefit is the same as harming Society

[whakim]

You stated categorically that "society and legislators should only forbid harmful action" rather than "compelling helpful action" and then chose a particularly nonsensical example of "compelling helpful action" to prove your point. There are plenty of (much more realistic) examples of "compelling helpful action" which don't lead to "absurd conclusions."

[s1artibartfast]

Yes, I think it is a categorical truth.

Yes, I chose an extreme and absurd example to illustrate the point. I said as much in the post.

I agree that there are many realistic examples of compelling action. If you provide some I would probably disagree that the government should be doing them.

[CogitoCogito]

It seems to me like the EU considers companies making their own proprietary phone charger connectors as “harmful”. So I’m having trouble understanding what you take issue with here.

[s1artibartfast]

I'm saying that it isn't harmful and they shouldn't be making that law.

Claims that apple chargers are harmful are logically bankrupt.

If I like tuna sandwiches, am I harmed if a restaurant doesn't have it on the menu? Of course not! They are literally doing nothing to me.

I don't have to eat there any more than I have to buy an iPhone.

[baq]

Plenty of folks in this thread disagree with you, not only the EU legislative branch. You seem to be missing the fact that we have a society here and it demands concessions and compromises to be part of one.

[origin_path]

Please don't refer to the "legislative branch" of the EU. The EU doesn't implement separation of powers like most governments do. Laws like this originate with, are passed by and are enforced by the Commission.

There is a so-called Parliament. It's more like the US House of Lords power-wise. It can slow down legislation or tweak it a bit. It can't actually change the law, which means it's not a Parliament.

There is a set of courts. You can appeal to them against the decisions of the Commission after the punishment is enacted. Unlike in normal democratic systems of government, the government doesn't have to prove guilt in a neutral court of law. They assert guilt, fine you a few billion dollars and then if you have enough money left over you can appeal in the courts. Years will pass and if you eventually win, you might get the money back. Of course the Commission might then just fine you again - the rules are vague and being in compliance essentially political. The courts also have a history of activism and 'discovering' new laws in the texts of existing laws.

The EU is structurally and philosophically a Soviet-style system, which makes sense given its origins in the Ventotene Manifesto. Like all such systems it has institutions that use the names as western democratic institutions, but on close inspection the rules are sufficiently different that they aren't effective.

"we have a society here and it demands concessions"

"Society" doesn't care about phone connectors or make demands. Governments do that. Survey the populations in EU countries and their top priorities are nowhere even close to this. They mostly care about the economy, immigration and climate change.

[baq]

I can't wait for the EU to become a federation. I don't see it happening in my lifetime but who knows what the next crisis will bring. But I digress...

> "Society" doesn't care about phone connectors or make demands. Governments do that. Survey the populations in EU countries and their top priorities are nowhere even close to this. They mostly care about the economy, immigration and climate change.

If you asked me what the top issues in the EU are, my top 3 answers would be:

1. energy policy

2. energy policy

3. idiots at the helm of ECB (how is the new hermes scarf, mrs Lagarde?) who can't comprehend energy policy

but! if you asked me specifically if I want to see phone charging cables standardized by legislation, I'd say yes, why now and not 10 years ago. Call me a Soviet for that, I don't care.

[s1artibartfast]

Thank you for articulating my point at greater length.

>It's more like the US House of Lords power-wise.

:)

[s1artibartfast]

>You seem to be missing the fact that we have a society here and it demands concessions and compromises to be part of one.

No reason that society has to demand this concession. Society will not crumble if Apple has unique connectors. Apple isn't hurting anyone.

I prefer live and let live, over trying to squeeze ever concession I can out of people.

[CogitoCogito]

> I'm saying that it isn't harmful and they shouldn't be making that law.

It appears the legislators in question disagree with you. I guess you’re free to contact them and try to convince them of your beliefs.

[s1artibartfast]

Yes, this is how free democracies work. People can disagree, criticize, and convince.

[JAlexoid]

Cool. As soon as Apple relinquishes all monopoly on IP, then we can talk about if governments can interfere here.

These companies hold a craptonne of legal power to force me and you. I'm sorry that I have zero regrets when it comes to just a common standard... Just like I have zero regrets that all power outlets in EU are 220v/50Hz

[funklute]

> Compelling helpful action leads to all kinds of absurd conclusions.

No it doesn't. Besides, "not doing something helpful" vs "doing something hurtful" is often simply a matter of perspective.

> For example, that we should we compel doctors to work more hours because anytime they spend at home is to the detriment of their patients.

To use your own language, this example is completely absurd. Here is your logic applied to forbidding harmful actions: "Setting speed limits on roads leads to all kinds of absurd conclusions, for example that we should forbid people to walk too fast in their homes."