[hallqv]

This is the worst type of regulatory overreach - a true innovation killer - putting useless regulatory burden on all car manufacturers. It will only benefit the large incumbents that can afford to be inefficient.

In what world (except for a communist one) is it the role of the government to put arbitrary laws in place pandering to nische interests like this one? The role for regulations is in ensuring the safety of citizens and fighting mono/oligo-polies (instead of helping them, like in this case).

[richbell]

> The role for regulations is in ensuring the safety of citizens and fighting mono/oligo-polies (instead of helping them, like in this case).

If this is so beneficial to auto makers, it's curious why they've invested so much money in lobbying and advertising to try and defeat it. Perhaps it's more complicated than you're implying?

[hallqv]

Of course it’s not beneficial per se to auto makers but it’s relatively more troublesome for smaller automakers than bigger ones. Unless they are focused solely on providing cars that are easy to repair of course. In that case they will be given a government mandated market advantage in true communist fashion.

History has clearly taught us that socialism doesn’t work - why do we keep forgetting?

[alextingle]

> *market* advantage in true *communist* fashion

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

[hallqv]

What do you mean? China is the major communist economy in the world and they have plenty of “markets“, but the CPC are the ones who pick the winners through legislation and/or subsidies.

[richbell]

> China is the major communist economy in the world...

Look up "State Capitalism".

[richbell]

> In that case they will be given a government mandated market advantage in true communist fashion.

The USA is a capitalist county. "Communism" and "Socialism" are not synonyms for "the government is doing things I disagree with."

[hallqv]

As I stated above what I disagree is a system where legislation is used for other purposes than 1) protecting citizens from harm 2) combating anti-competitive practices by incumbent businesses.

The legislation in question clearly falls outside these two categories.

[stodor89]

Wait what?

Being able to repair my stuff is obviously 1) protecting me from harm and 2) combating anti-competitive practices.