[sangnoir]

> Freedom is the key component of capitalism, in the purist sense.

Competitive markets and price information are also key components of capitalism - and the "right to repair" enhances both. Empirically, manufactures don't like competing for repairs, and they also obfuscate the cost of those repairs so customers would never know the total cost of ownership ahead of time.

State intervention does not violate capitalist ideals when it enhances competition, I'll go further and say coercive monopolies are anti-capitalist. Just because I bought a widget from you shouldn't force me to have it solely fixed by you at a price of your choosing.

[DrFlipper]

Yes, coercion of any kind is anti-capitalist, yet you advocate for coercion by the state.

No coercion (voluntary transaction, no state involvement): "I'll sell you this widget, but only if you agree to bring it to me for any repairs." "Ok."

Coercion (state intervention): "Hi, I see you are about to sell your widget to that other guy who would like to buy it, knowing only you can perform any future repairs. If you go ahead, I will use the full force of the justice system to punish you, up to and including death."

I realise this is unrealistically ideal. The language is very important to get right though. You are advocating for coercion for the common good, not the absence of it. The state is impotent without violence, you don't need to shy away from it. State == force.

[sangnoir]

> I'll sell you this widget, but only if you agree to bring it to me for any repairs." "Ok."

I don't see how you don't see how this all-or-nothing approach as coercive. Maybe if I change the actors it'll become more apparent to you:

"You can sell your widget in our jurisdiction, but only if you agree to our laws." "Ok."

The power imbalance and lack of choice is what makes it not great. Clearly, you see the power of the state, but somehow ignoring the power of corporates over individuals; they might not be legally able to end your life, but they can ruin it (e.g. how recently-convicted eBay executives hounded their victim, or thr list of dead companies that "agreed" to work with Apple or Walmart).

I am unashamedly for using state power as a counterbalance to corporate power. Unregulated profit-seeking has never resulted in good outcomes for humans.

[javajosh]

History is driven by theory tempered by pragmatism. The market cannot set its own rules, and standardization helps markets thrive by reducing the risk to the participants. It sounds like you've recently read Ayn Rand, so perhaps you're not ready to hear this, but an unregulated market will quickly fall apart because of rampant fraud. In a way there is a market for markets, and buyers and sellers both generally prefer a regulated market to an unregulated one. Not for ideological reasons, but for practical ones.

[DrFlipper]

I agree, my point was that the state is coercion/violence, not that it should be avoided.

(I am a fascist, for the record.)