Is it nanny-state? Yes, but maybe some people need a nanny.
The problem is that in the nanny state regime, the state gets to define what counts as "responsible". Which really means certain people (those with wealth and power) get to impose their definition of "responsible" on everyone else.
The only other alternative is something like having some objective event trigger a legal requirement to have the nanny version. For example, a driving-while-texting ticket could trigger a legal requirement to have the nanny version of a phone that won't text while you're in a car.
The problem with this is, who gets to decide which objective event is the trigger? There is no real solution to this problem; it always ends up with a hodgepodge of arbitrary rules that benefit certain people (those with wealth and power), but are a net loss for society as a whole.
Which in practice, at least in the US, means that unelected bureaucrats get to write the detailed regulations that actually decide, based on extremely vague and broad laws written by the legislature. Which in turn means that people with wealth and power can manipulate the system to get regulations passed that benefit them but are a net loss to society as a whole.
> If it's not, then either the manufacturer decides
Which isn't any better.
> or it doesn't happen
Which would be my desired outcome. If only.
you make it sound as though this not desirable. To seem it seems likely that career professionals have higher chances of being effective and unbiased than elected officials whose campaigns need to be funded and poses no other qualification/ experience than being adult citizen .
This sounds nice in theory. In practice the unelected bureaucrats will not be "career professionals" with the proper professional ethics and willingness to be unbiased. Look up "regulatory capture".
As for the phone - if things start going this route, they can keep the damn thing. I'll figure out some other way to communicate, I don't have to have their phone.
Furthermore - in regards to the thermostat setting: If I have the money to pay my bill for what I use, what damn business is it of anyone what I do as long as I can pay for it, and it isn't directly harming them?
Again - they'll have a hard time though bypassing tech that's 100+ years old...
But if the power company says "well - you have to have this to get power from us" - then that just moves me one step closer to going off-grid.
As much as a loathe to make the slippery slope argument, who decides where the line is? What is "okay" nannying, and what pushes the envelope? I think there are other ways of encouraging behavior (e.g., non-linear energy pricing for electricity) that don't totally remove free will from the equation.
children do
Following the rule yourself won't magically make other people follow the rule as well. As far as the mobile phone example goes - yes, anti-texting-while-driving software is something I would not install on my phone if given the choice. I'd consider making it mandatory to install it on all phones, though. I'm responsible enough to not text while driving, but whether I make that decision correctly doesn't keep someone else from plowing into me.