I imagine bringing up the current situation with John Deere and how the law would enshrine the right to repair the tractor that you bought with your own money would go farther than most arguments with those folks.
But for the non-farmers, perhaps it'd really sway tribal mindsets to understand people "similar to them" (more so than elite techies...) benefit too.
As if I'm blind or stupid and wouldn't try the obvious??
You can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason into
They have no rebuttal because you're now making their own arguments. Regulations that allow those parts to be seized or those people to be jailed should be repealed.
In general the libertarian position is that problems like this would be solved by competition if there weren't government regulations stifling competition. And they're often right. DMCA 1201 impairs adversarial interoperability and therefore competition. Trademark law is meant to be about consumer protection and accurately representing the source of goods to the consumer, not enabling price discrimination by putting up trade barriers to cross-border arbitrage.
But a lot of those bad laws, they're federal. So if all you have control over is a state legislature, and those laws exist and have impaired competition and the state legislature can't remove federal laws, you then have to ask what they can do about the problems caused by those laws, until such time as we can get them repealed at the federal level.
If you want a fun compromise, pass a right to repair bill that only applies to companies with more than a billion dollars in revenue (but using the largest entity in the supply chain, so you can't just use a small business as a middle man to get out of it). That's going to make it apply to any of the relevant companies, but then if you ever managed to actually make those markets competitive enough for smaller businesses to be viable, you don't have yet another rule stacking on more barriers to entry for small businesses.
I'm not going to bother to address most of your comment because of this.... but just.... Unbelievably rude and arrogant of you lol. Par for libertarians.
Anyway no they where not libertarians they where MAGA as I stated.
They weren't interested in any of the BS you espoused. Things seized at border? Must be dangerous or illegal ,good on our boys in blue.ppl in jail? Must be protecting society.. OBVIOUSLY innocent citizens don't go to jail. Etc etc.
Don't believe climate change is real at all
Don't believe COVID is real or was real. At all.
Highly evangelical Christian while being the most unchristlike beings imaginable.
MAGA BULLSHIT not libertarians...
People say "rude" when they mean insubordinate, as if subordination is something anyone is entitled to.
Anyway. My original point stands. Right to repair is heavily politicized in maga crowds and therefore the current Republican party. Most of the arguments they have against it are nonsense and is very much akin to drug war reasoning. The only people in their eyes who want right to repair are pirates ,thieves and smugglers.
I don't give a fuck what libertarians think because they hold no political power or sway.even if they hold the logical ethical high ground in what SHOULD happen.... Nothing ever changes regardless of their opinions. Again see the drug war.
I disagree. There are many situations in which it will always be more profitable to screw over consumers than it would be to not screw them over, even taking into account that you might steal some business from competitors.
Any company that does spring up out of nowhere and do the right thing for the consumer will eventually be forced to screw over their customers or be bought up by someone who will because shareholders will never leave giant piles of money sitting on the table. Even if a company somehow managed to put every one of their competitors out of business, shareholders will still demand endless growth so the only thing left is to screw the customers and degrade the product which is exactly what we see over and over again once a company has anything close to a monopoly.
But this is exactly the point.
A competitive market is going to have at least a dozen suppliers. There are some corporate apologists who like to pretend that a duopoly is competition and only a strict monopoly is a problem, but that's BS. With sufficiently few suppliers they can easily collude with each other or use conscious parallelism to make sure that everybody is screwing customers and therefore nobody has to stop.
A competitive market isn't a thing where one company is so great they put all of their competitors out of business. It's a thing where entering the market is easy so lots of people do it all the time.
Suppose there is a market with five companies all colluding to screw the customer. If entering the market is easy then soon there are six companies, because investors like money. If the incumbents are getting 50% margins and you could go eat their lunch while still getting 20% margins, that's what you do. Then there are six companies getting 20% margins, but that's still a good profit margin and it's still easy to enter the market, so soon there are seven and their margins are 8%. Trying to buy out the new guys or collude with them doesn't work because the combination of "industry with high margins" and "easy to enter the market" means new companies will keep showing up forever until the margins come down.
Whereas if there is a market with five companies all colluding to screw the customer and regulations make it hard for anyone new to enter the market, the customer is screwed. Which is what keeps happening.