Hacker News Reader

I would note that there is a vast spectrum between unregulated between an unregulated free market and a totalitarian state. Regulation to correct for market failures or price in externalities is largely compatible with market economies and screaming dictatorship every time someone suggests this kind of thing is not helpful.

> That's the advantage of totalitarian control, and there are many, many people who are led by their inner totalitarian. These are the ones genuinely upset that their neighbors are making different trade-offs. For them, it's not that they can't buy durable glasses, but that someone, somewhere, is allowed to buy cheap glasses. That is what bothers them.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. More often people object to others making choices that have externalized costs. For example, vaccine resistors say mandated vaccinations are tyranny and make comparisons like yours to totalitarian regimes and fascism. They are told innumerable times that no, vaccination is about preventing the spread of disease, because if your "freedom" leads to sickness, it will quite likely both spread to others and burden the healthcare system that others depend on. The resistors don't even acknowledge the argument. If you attribute the positions of others to their inner evil, and ignore the arguments they actually make, you've got an easy, unfalsifiable argument that makes you the hero and the other the devil. Really the argument comes down to "you ain't the boss of me!"

This pattern is repeated ad nauseam. You're opposed to plastic drinking straws? Inner fascism! You don't like PFAS in the drinking water? Inner fascism! You don't like fishing methods that kill right whales? Inner fascism! You don't like tall trucks with spiked grills? Inner fascism! (Yes, this last one is facetious, but not far off.)

There are a lot of Potemkin arguments out there, positions people hold because the actual motivation for their positions are too ugly to bear public scrutiny. You can recognize these when people abandon their arguments without ever abandoning their goals. This means arguing against what others actually say is fruitless. It's like a bull charging a red cape. Nevertheless, ignoring their public arguments and accusing them of hidden evil intentions can never be your first strategy. They have to first demonstrate that they are arguing in bad faith.

> But when people say things like "capitalism has no need for X", what they are bemoaning is that the bulk of the market is choosing different tradeoffs.

What I am bemoaning is planned obsolescence, under capitalism there is hardly any incentive to make things more durable unless absolutely necessary. Superfest glasses may or may not be an example of planned obsolescence winning over durability as I do not know the costs to produce them and it seems there are some downsides like breaking rather violently once their time has finally come.

>What I am bemoaning is planned obsolescence, under capitalism there is hardly any incentive to make things more durable unless absolutely necessary.

Counterexample: gorilla glass on phones. Surely using it isn't "absolutely necessary" either?

Also, you can apply the same logic to planned economies. What are you going to do, buy it from the competitor?

At the same time smart phones are also a great example for my point: Just consider soldered on batteries and the lack of software updates or in Apples case slowing down old phones.

I guess the reason why a lot of phones use gorilla glass is that the quality difference to regular glass is more noticeable and things like scratch resistance are a little more than just pure durability.

But I have to admit that my statement was of course somewhat hyperbole :)