Where do your rights begin and another’s end? If they wish to build a product in a way that you dislike, does it not impede their rights for you to inflict your will on them against their wishes?
This idea of a nice binary black and white cutoff for rights does not, and has not ever existed. This really is an absurdist American viewpoint. Let's make an example
"it's my legal right to pour a cup of water out on my property"
And, no one would really disagree with that.
"So I'm going to do it with a million cups of water all at once"
In which a flood happens destroying others property..., then we would see that the measure of ones actions is the consequences to others. If you make a car for yourself, go ahead and build it how you want. If you are making a mass produced product it's no longer about you or your rights. It's a superposition of your rights, the buyers rights, and the 'publics' rights as you dispose of that product.
The concept of rights is not binary, but at a certain point there cannot be multiple conflicting “rights” — 1 must get preference.
The maker starts with a right to make a product as they see best. The buyer has a right to purchase or not. The “public’s” rights are an interesting concept.
>The maker starts with a right to make a product as they see best.
I'm pretty sure we're not even on the same planet at this point. If you think this is true, go produce some products as 'you see best' and see how long before you end up in criminal/civil court. There are myriads of regulations on what you can and cannot put in products that are sold to others. To think otherwise is a level disillusionment that only the most staunch libertarians reach.
The public has rights, the market is not a free for all do to whatever you'd like.
This is easier than you think. If more people are apt to be disadvantaged by your actions than not why shouldn't they simply vote your rights away?
As a business person in any industry this is already true in 1000 mostly reasonable ways that mostly derive from outrageous behavior of prior actors in your space. In that context it seems ridiculous to argue against 1001 on principle unless the specific regulation is itself ill advised. The only justification it needs is for it to be a net positive.
Basically why do 338 million people give a fuck if a handful of people want to do user hostile things. Do them somewhere else.
control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.
I'm advocating for regulating industry for the greater benefit of the overwhelming majority of society as is already practiced in every developed nation on earth. You already can't build a house or sell a sandwich without following half a hundred regulations which are written in the ashes if a million poor fuckers who were maimed, killed, or fucked prior to yourself. If you exist in the modern business landscape you have internalized this and accepted it as the cost of doing business. Nobody gives every a little fuck if for instance you think your sandwich shop doesn't need health inspections or your workers don't need food handlers cards or if you would like to sell houses that don't meet building codes.
If we mutually understand that is literally how the world works everywhere then going back and pretending that society needs to justify "taking away Elon's rights to sell consumer hostile cars" then we are being intellectually dishonest. The same way you are being intellectually dishonest by denigrating simple democracy as "mob rule".
There should be limits to what companies are allowed to do in order to stop user hostile behaviour. It’s reasonable to say that if you want to sell things as a company you should have to take some basic steps like this
Rights to impose your will about something, should end at the point where you sell this thing to someone else. That's how it should be. Sadly a lot of companies are trying to rent rather than sell (see: ebooks, anything as a service, etc.) because this way they don't lose control.
That's called renting, not buying. There's no buyer in that case. And that's exactly the rent-seeking trend I talk about. Most virtual "purchases" are actually just rent because you don't actually own the thing.
This idea of a nice binary black and white cutoff for rights does not, and has not ever existed. This really is an absurdist American viewpoint. Let's make an example
"it's my legal right to pour a cup of water out on my property"
And, no one would really disagree with that.
"So I'm going to do it with a million cups of water all at once"
In which a flood happens destroying others property..., then we would see that the measure of ones actions is the consequences to others. If you make a car for yourself, go ahead and build it how you want. If you are making a mass produced product it's no longer about you or your rights. It's a superposition of your rights, the buyers rights, and the 'publics' rights as you dispose of that product.