‘Right to repair’ equipment removed from North Carolina Senate farm bill
newsobserver.com
newsobserver.com
And wouldn’t there already be company liability protections and user agreements in place anyways?
It just seems like a ridiculously condescending “but think of all the farmers that will die” argument that these people are too stupid to be allowed to work with their own equipment.
It's meant to make you "feel" for them as opposed to actually looking at the objective facts like "people have been replacing parts on their vehicles/tractors/farm equipment every since the ICE was invented over 100 years ago and there wasn't a 99% casualty rate like John Deere is trying to invoke in your head."
It's frustrating seeing the newer generations grow up into this, because they're going to be used to it and see it as a part of their daily lives - "Oh well, time to log a service call with Tractor Company X and wait two weeks for a service tech to show up while my crops stay untreated"
If companies like Apple, John Deere, etc. stayed in their wheelhouse and didn't actively restrict new up and comers into a market that already requires millions of capital to even consider starting - maybe then there'd be more competition and we'd have tractor companies that let you change your own parts out and they'd likely put a company like Deere out of business or at least heavily financially push them to have a better service call experience.
Feedback is important in politics. How to reps know what their people want? What they need?
The people of NC who care about this should organize around the issue and let their reps know what they think about it. Give them feedback. In mass, if possible.
You need to be able to trust that your doctors guidance is genuinely what they feel is best based on their training and experience rather than a sponsored treatment they have been paid to prescribe.
Your doctor may have many patients, but they are not making the same decision for all of them. Same with any lawyer you retain.
Your elected rep has to represent people with diametrically opposed desires. Also, you don't pay them directly and you have no principal-agent relationship.
In the analogy, the doctor's patient or the lawyer's client represents the electorate as a whole.
They are going to listen to the squeaky wheel in their base.
You have an extraordinarily narrow view of what things should be voted for - and to then claim that anyone who disagrees with you, doesn't belong in the US?
Those who don't vote are not the issue.
If one comes to a nation based on principles of individual rights, and they are not activists opposing the individual rights, they're just confused, and should be ignored as long as they don't violate the rights of others, but they are free (despite their opposition to it) to stay and be confused.
I made no claims about people who do not vote. I stated the truth; that voting is a mechanism to defend individual rights. There is no such thing as a right to vote to violate the rights of others.
If you are for individual rights, than you belong in a nation based on the principle of individual rights, whether you vote or not. If you oppose individual rights, you belong least of all on a nation based on the principle of individual rights, but your "vote" is illegitimate and should not be tolerated, as you'd be a saboteur.
Those who would be free have one nation on the planet meant for them. Cowards, tyrants, and willing slaves, have the entire rest of the planet to suffer. Those who oppose freedom don't reside in the one place meant to be free with good intention. If they just haven't left yet, they could easily find help leaving asap.
> There is no such thing as a right to vote to violate the rights of others.
Sure there is. I voted against a proposal to fund something I disagree with. I lost, and I have to pay it each year.
You can vote to add a restriction on where someone can built a car dealership.
You can vote to prevent someone from eating something he wants to eat.
You can vote to prevent someone from leaving his house at certain times.
You can vote to prevent someone from wearing an object he desires to wear.
Like I said, the America you imagine does not exist.
Let's not misconstrue what I am saying. Considering that everyone who has influence in the political structure of the US, has the right and duty to use the system to protect the rights of the individual. This is accurate, and true. The fact that we don't have this is due to corruption, confused useful idiots, and criminals who betray their oaths.
There is no such "right" as the right to violate another.
The US is not a democracy, or tyranny of the largest group which is almost never a majority, for a reason. It is a Constitutionally restricted republic with the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the individual. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, but restrict government from violating them. There is no such thing as legitimate government anywhere that violates the right of the individual, but in the US the Law is officially recognized.
Do not let our lawless (by that I mean, "criminal" as the law of the land is very clear, just violated) society fool you. The United States is occupied and sabotaged. If Americans ever regained control, the saboteurs would be brought to justice, and removed. This won't happen.. but it should happen, and it was the design.
>Like I said, the America you imagine does not exist.
It's not my imagination. If you study the design, you will see what was meant to be. Had the intention been for tyranny of the largest group, or even another individual, it would have been designed as a democracy, or a monarchy, or any other system that already enabled such things.
However, we don't disagree about the criminal state of the US today, and the lack of justice for those who corrupt it. The fact that slavers/slaves won't allow a single lawful political region to exist anywhere one Earth should beg the question if it should exist, especially since the slavers have the useful idiot slaves paying lip service to the notion of "tolerance", and "pro choice", when it serves the herding. If only they understood, and believed, some of their claims.
They’d rather have a lame duck Democrat/Republican than vs Republicans/Democrat that’s diametrically opposed to them on big popular topics. Those get people to the streets.
They already are, the problem is that the majority of the populace isn't affected and can't be motivated to care. The average voter is not someone who owns or operates farm equipment. What we have are two niche groups trying to affect legislation on a niche subject.
"Feedback in politics" is rarely accurate and is prone to selection bias. There was an AMA for a congressional staffer on reddit years ago and they revealed that congresspeople have rules of thumb when it comes to estimating what their constituents want. Essentially, they judge online petitions as worthless, an email represents a single person, a phone call represents about 10 people, a mailed letter represents about 50 people, and a handwritten note speaks for about 100 people. The idea being that the number of constituents who care is higher than the number than can be bothered to contact them. And, the level of effort put in roughly lines up with broader support. Even still, the majority of their constituency is not at all engaged. I can imagine this rule of thumb breaking down for very niche topics.
Of course, once people figured this out many activists started sending handwritten notes to try and sway the politicians by making the issue seem more important.
>> Essentially, they judge online petitions as worthless, an email represents a single person, a phone call represents about 10 people, a mailed letter represents about 50 people, and a handwritten note speaks for about 100 people.
But I'm pretty sure all those numbers round to zero unless a check is attached, in my years and years of trying to speak to local/regional/state politicians in person, writing them, and calling them.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
If it can be shown that the heavy equipment manufacturers are behaving as a cartel to capture and control the market, then that would seem a serious campaign issue, and candidates should be running to take care of the little guy.
Get out the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and restore competition to the marketplace.
America: if you're still exceptional, then step up to the plate.
https://www.wral.com/nc-senate-leaders-strike-controversial-...
WRAL's article really shows exactly why the provision failed: the opponents of the bill mobilized slightly more than 12 dealers to appear at the hearing.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter."
and blocked low cost medical imaging because then the hospitals would have to lower their prices and make less money. ( https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/n-c-bureau... )
Similar to the Nascar idea, but with that we'd see larger podiums used to hide the more embarrassing fundings.
China’s history for example is arguably that cycle on repeat.
A lot of the democratic institutions of the US were built after the war to prevent the prior issues. Sadly those memories are fading and the institutions are eroding as a result - leading back to the cycle you speak of.
"Why do my plants keep dying???" said man who waters his plants 24/7/365.
That's not a very accurate description of the situation.
> this is the same state
Approximately 30 states have the same law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need singling out this one isn't fair, not is it a reasonable way to make your point. Putting out cherry picked info without context is the kind of thing we accuse media of doing to generate clicks - you don't need clicks.
Online commenters will engage in just as many creative ways of lying with plausible deniability as shady media outlets if it makes the number in the top right get bigger.