It’s time to accept regulation actually does work when you have a competent government.
This is how you end up turning a chunk of your food supply into fuel to subsidize crops which aren't all that good at being distilled into fuel in the first place...
Elected officials (and some appointed, like SCOTUS) keep changing laws and precedents to allow more and more money in politics. They can't quit all that dark money - without a lot of funding, you don't get elected. Usually the best funded candidate wins.
There was an anonymous oped from a congressman some years back which bemoaned the reality - that 60% of their time was dedicated to meeting with donors for reelection campaigns instead of working on real problems.
The difference matters.
Like who?
Not defending Trump, to be clear, just saying US imperialism and fascism has much deeper roots and that removing Trump is not going to fix any issues the rest of the world has with the USA.
A lot of invective, but nothing in practice that really indicates not tolerating.
Most of the world never tolerated it. Even when western governments tolerated it, the population did not; see also the huge worldwide demonstrations against the Iraq war.
I think the difference in perception is because the european oligarchy is now being effectively treated as was previously the rest of the world, so they're now taking a stance because they feel threatened, whereas they previously saw themselves as aligned with the US government no matter what.
I remember reports at the time on the Intercept and other media about the entire kill chain. If i remember correctly, the policy was to count anyone who was not proved to be a civilian as an active enemy in the body count. There was this DOD/CIA press conference announcing they made a targeted killing and that their target assessment was mostly based on the individual's height.
Then there's of course Obama famously and publicly joking about his children's lovers suggesting they should behave or would get killed by « predator drones ». [2] Let me know if you dig interesting links on the topic!
[1] https://www.cfr.org/articles/obamas-final-drone-strike-data
[2] https://abcnews.com/WN/president-obama-tells-joke-jonas-brot...
I also think drone strikes exacerbate public outrage much the way mass shootings do: if we want to decrease gun deaths, limiting AR-15s isn't the way to do it because the vast majority of gun deaths are handguns. But mass shootings upset people, so we outlaw the guns that upset them. Similarly with drones, people don't get as upset about tens of thousands killed in a broader war, they're put off by the smaller number of casualties caused by drones.
You would think that if the policy was as flawed as you describe it would be easier to find evidence of it now?
Much of the government including Macron himself are involved in corruption scandals. Others are involved in rape scandals. Others in fiscal fraud. But you're correct they're not as open about it as Trump is.
That's the problem. People don't want to blame the voters because there's no solution. We are grasping for something that is possible to fix that isn't just "Somehow americans are especially bad at doing very basic things for no reason"
I’ve done my part, I have voted for “progressive”/safety net policies and the US has gone in the opposite direction. This isn’t some shrill unthought out plan.
I’m actually in the country now I plan to retire to for six weeks and I’m coming back for a month in the summer, part of the ex-pat community and meeting people, my wife and I have been learning Spanish and I speak it okay and I know the processes for establishing residency here
I’m over dealing with the American people. As a minority, I find the entire attitude outside of the US refreshing even as the only Black couple in our expat group. For reference, my still living parents grew up in the segregated South.
Second, it had nothing to do with the Supreme Court. The theory was that the airwaves belong to the public and the FCC has jurisdiction. It never applied to cable channels like FoxNews
Third, the current FCC is going after broadcast networks for not being fair under the rule
Now most things go over the shared network (InterNet) so that problem should have fixed it self, no?
The Internet is not a limited resource and not owned by the public and licensed to broadcasters. More than one company can lay cable.
Do you really want the government policing what can be said on the internet?
Instead, Australia is best described as pigs at the slops trough.
A nation that seems to only want to vote for leaders who have a public humiliation kink.
This is the same story told by Tom Morello, guitarist of Rage Against the Machine (at the end of the early life section): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Morello#Early_life
Key line: "He had to compromise his entire being every day."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_pres...
* People elect morons because we have been slowly destroying our education system since the 50's and we can barely turn out anyone who can think worth a shit. That's by design, as local elections overwhelmingly swing Republican, and Republicans on balance gain from an ignorant electorate.
* Additionally, we are now bombarded with "information" from wake to sleep every single day, and beyond the actual problems which are already stressful enough, we also have a whole bunch of made up culture war nonsense that mainstream and alternative media loves to discuss, both to fill airtime and because researching and covering nonsense is far less work, less legally actionable, and garners more attention overall. Information overload affects people too and makes them more likely to choose easy/quick things.
* Dark money is also a HUGE issue because it permits capital to influence elections like never before. It's no coincidence all of this shit got turbocharged after Citizens United.
* Gerrymandering is also a huge, huge issue wherein Democrat votes are simply disregarded or packed into single districts, which helps local elections shift further right constantly.
* The courts are also hideously corrupt. The Supreme Court is utterly failing to reign in the Trump administration on everything short of wiping their asses with the constitution, and that's not shocking considering how many of them were appointed by Trump and confirmed by the inept Congress.
And then any time Democrats do manage to acquire something resembling power, they have so many fires to put out that they can barely get us back to an even keel before another "outsider" dumbass comes in and starts screwing it up again.
How is electing Trump any different than George Wallace having a slogan of “Segregation Now! Segregation Tomorrow! Segregation Forever!”?
There was no ignorance. Everyone knows that the government has a “monopoly on [legalized] violence”. If they can elect people who will turn that violence against people they don’t like, they are doing it with full knowledge.
Voting based on who the (to be) elected hate instead of on actual policy is ignorant towards the serious matter of the art of leading a state (politics). Being malevolent regarding politics would be to sabotage elections or trying to dissolve state organs.
Then in 2008 Mitch McConnel said, literally to reporters, "I will make Obama a one term president" and declared their job was to not let the government do anything.
And just like that, it became Republican Party Doctrine that you do not cross the party line or else you get fired. This was absolutely supported and highly praised by their constituents! As Democrat politicians continued to work their assess off crossing the aisle, finding any way to keep the country functioning as half of the government declared strike (the irony).
But for some reason we aren't allowed to say this. Republicans directly say their plan and strategy and malice to the camera and we get punished for showing their voters exactly what they vote for.
Democrats are still trying to make deals, because half of them are literally just republicans with a (D), but if you ever ever ever ever cross the aisle as a Republican, even to fix a problem your base has spent decades screaming about, you get primaried.
Republican voters have done this. The republican party has chosen to do this. They own this.
As an ex-expat to US, I never could stop smh over how Americans are not making it a number 1 issue for themselves. Private prison, private healthcare, gun industry, all types of small industries keep US government in their pockets and the society, as a whole, in a complete gridlock, unable to meet its actual expectations.
If you have 10 friends and ask them where they want to eat for dinner and six say let’s go to an Italian restaurant and 4 say “let’s kill Bob and eat him”, you still have a shitty group of friends.
It only takes one controversy to tip the scales. All governments have a propensity to want more power.
Some governments have more effective checks-and-balances than others. The EU is a much looser confederation than the US, with significantly more power still invested in the member states (many of whom themselves are also loose confederations of semi-autonomous provinces...)
Yeah, just like with Chat Control and such, it takes vigilance and informing people around you in order to deny these sorts of things from happening, but we can take some respite in it not happening. The USB-C regulation changed things for the better by forcing the most obstinate member of the mobile phone ecosystem to adopt the connector. The replaceable battery regulation will force manufacturers to make their devices more repairable, and that is a good thing.
Discounting that because of political mistakes that were only narrowly avoided seems frankly myopic. You can't just argue against all the good things the EU has done with "whatabout Chat Control"
Given that it's the EU making those regulations, it looks like the government only has to be semi-competent. Maybe the only requirement is that they're not totally in bed with the big corps making money.
Context: I'm not a EU-native, I've migrated to here.
It disturbs me a lot when people keep repeating the "incompetent government" narrative when it comes to the EU, but when you compare it to the dictatorship that I escaped from, they still seem way more competent, surprising when the big advantage of a dictatorship is supposed to be increased efficiency while reducing personal rights.
Personally I cannot name a better government (or governing body, given that we are talking about the whole EU) anywhere else on this planet.
I feel I'm incredibly lucky to live here even when the economy is getting tougher. The only thing that worries me and makes me consider leaving is the right-extremes, which to this day, thankfully had limited influence.
Sorry for the digression, but I just wanted to address this repeating pattern. It's possible that you have very valid reasons to call them semi-competent and that I'm overreacting.
Not to mention Eastern Europe until the wall fell. All dictatorships in different forms. So yeah we've had our share as well.
The problem with the EU is that it seems to be becoming more susceptible to industry lobbying. As of late they are reducing environmental laws (the banning of ICE cars), weakening GDPR and DMA/DSA etc. Not very happy with that. Ursula herself was all about her 'green deal' during her first administration and now she's breaking it all down.
https://jacobin.com/2025/05/ve-day-wwii-fascism-liberalism
There's a storm coming.
In my origin country too unfortunately. But not where I live.
I think that particular one is because they realized their timeline is impossible to hit without utterly crippling EU
> weakening GDPR and DMA/DSA
There was always a lot of push for that, it is very much "yes/try later" on those legislations, we got the biggest traitor of the freedom out (UK) but there are still countries either interested, or incompetent enough to think the pushed ideas are a good thing
When it has been the Left that has largely governed Europe for the previous few decades to bring it to the point where it is now where the economics and defence capabilities of nations that once ruled the world are now laughing stock on the global stage.
Absolutely Europe ruled the world economically and militarily.
...and yet it gets repeated!
I'm not worried about the right ideology. Last time I took a political test, it told me I'm slightly right-leaning, but that changes every time I take such tests :)
I said that I'm disturbed by the extremists who plan to take away my legally earned rights.
European countries have rules and requirements like most other countries. I looked at their criteria, it sounded fair, took the deal and now I'm here. I pay my taxes, obey the rules, even applied for citizenship (takes ages), and I expect my rights to be protected as well, as long as keep my end of the deal. Those people threaten that golden rule.
Some seem to be obsessed about ruling and military power, and from the outside, they seem to believe that you only are allowed to move in this world if you kill/defeat the previous residents.
Those are the people I'm scared of.
Said differently, it is much easier for the EU to be impartial and competent when regulating Apple or Samsung than when regulating Volkswagen or Stellantis...
US companies just hit that barrier more often historically because they got used to "lobby it and it goes away" attitude to law, and when it doesn't work we have harpy screeeching about EU using laws to tax US companies that do not want to abide to law in place where they are doing business
They are still regulating the auto manufacturers pretty harshly, and without any particular favouritism, even though that is letting foreign players like BYD eat the lunch of the domestic manufacturers (who mostly seem to have bet the farm on a US-led return to fossil fuel dominance)
OTOH they can be a major pillar in a well-orchestrated anti-reuse, anti-recycling, anti-environmental money machine for some manufacturers.
>Choose another vendor
Good advice, I already did once Woz left ;)
This is the free market. Free as in, regulated to allow and encourage market entry and competition (as with replacement keyboards), not free as in unregulated. When you look back at when 'free market' was first strongly mentioned as a term, this is what it meant.
Probably not if you're one of the public.
Imagine how the world would look if the EU mandated rs-232c ports on all devices. Or 3.5" headphone jacks. Or the use of D batteries for all electronics. How about ms-dos compatibility?
Also good to remember that Apple is a company of good devices and tremendous marketing, not a company of tremendous devices per se. That entails a lot of subjectivity and awkward tribalism.
All it takes to see that government regulation never works, is to look at how far behind the EU is in terms of GDP growth compared with the US and China who both have a significantly lighter touch when it comes to regulation.
The EU is f*cked, and will become a little socialist region, with manual and tourist industry jobs, where rich people from the rest of the world go for a few weeks of vacation.
I left the EU a long time ago, and I've earned so much money after leaving the socialist madness, that I recommend all young people I meet to do the same.
On top of that, Europe isn’t a country. To have less regulation, you need more of it. Unifying regulations, or else you have dozens of completely different jurisdictions. To a large extent, you still do, even with the EU. You can’t sell to the general public in English. There are so many more things holding Europe back than ”need deregulation”.
Can you actually see the words you are typing? War is peace?
And regulation generally certainly works when it come to regulating and splitting up monopolies and oligopolies, workers right and etc. (US has plenty of both even if its occasionally idiosyncratic)
As far as I'm aware, that hasn't been socialized in the EU.
Don't forget about the time micro-USB has mandated. Was that "competent government"?
Besides, it’s easy to sell one’s freedom to a competent government, but it’s insanely hard to get it back when it rots. This has been the case of many welfare states. “Let’s force them to do the damn thing” is the very root of all social conflicts, not a magical solution. Being able to withstand it is a commendable exception, not rule.
However, trying to use an argument that this is 'an issue of physical force' is a ridiculous way to make an argument for that perspective. All laws eventually come down to that, so it is pointless to debate that for every discussion on what the law should be.
So I don’t think it’s ridiculous, I think it’s efficient.
> get in my face if I don’t follow their rules
If a shopkeeper asks me to leave because I refuse to follow his rules, he's exercising his right to control his own property, he's not initiating force.
> You’re selling your freedom to big corporations.
I'm not selling my freedom to corporations, they can't throw me in jail, or take my property by edict. The government, by contrast, holds a legal monopoly on force.
I am not an American, so I cannot diagnose declining life expectancy, homelessness, poor food, and other problems from afar. But I do know this: personal problems don't give one a moral claim on other people's labor. Need does not justify compulsion, and citizens are not sacrificial animals.
> I am an unfree European blinded by communism.
You hinted that Europe's communist past was somehow not a cautionary tale.
> The perfect example of cognitive dissonance!
Dressed-up ad hominem. You have no idea what I do or don't hold in my mind.
I see it exactly the other way around. I want this to be clarified upfront, not after I’ve already cut my tongue. What I don’t understand is why market participants are being given special treatment here. There are laws, and they must be followed. That applies just as much in other areas.
> personal problems don't give one a moral claim on other people's labor
Which problem is personal and which isn't? You seem to be twisting this to suit your questionable argument.
> You have no idea what I do or don't hold in my mind
But I read what you write and interpret it. Just as you read what I write and interpret it. Here’s another ad hominem for you: in your worldview, there is no morality at all. At least, none that is consistent. People like you behave toward the state like moody teenagers toward their parents. You don’t want to be told what to do, but you wouldn’t survive a single month without the institution you so despise.
Laws are contextual, they depend on more fundamental principles. A regulation that says "you must use this specific screw size" isn't a law in the same sense as "you shall not murder." When a "law" violates the principle of non-initiation of force, when it tells a manufacturer how to exercise his property rights under threat of imprisonment, it's not really a law but edict.
The issue is who decides and when. A court decides after harm occurs, based on evidence of actual negligence or fraud. A regulatory agency decides before anyone does anything, based on hypothetical risks, and compels compliance under threat of force.
> Which problem is personal and which isn't?
A personal problem is one that doesn't involve the infringement of rights against another person. Most problems are personal. One's homelessness doesn't give one a right to another's property. The moment you say "your need obligates me," you've crossed the line into compulsion.
> in your worldview, there is no morality at all. . . . People like you behave toward the state like moody teenagers toward their parents.
That tells me enough about the depth of your study on this subject. Morality is a science of identifying the principles by which a rational being sustains his life. You're not discussing that science, you're reaching for a metaphor.
> But I read what you write and interpret it.
"Cognitive dissonance" is an accusation about the state of my mind, not an interpretation. You don't get to call me internally contradictory and then say "I'm just interpreting."
You're right that civil judgements (and, though you haven't mentioned it yet, reputational brand damage through public exposure) are important checks on harm, but they break down in particular circumstances. In the first place, they're not a fair fight: corporations are able to limit, or even prevent, access to the court system by forced arbitration, jurisdiction changes, or intentionally running up attorney fees beyond what any plaintiffs can afford to risk. They also have ($£€¥, again) larger megaphones than any individual can reliably command.
The toy example of glass in a soup can makes for a perfect case, but civil suits are impossible to pursue where harms are long-term, diffuse, cumulative, or simply too difficult for a jury of lay-people to understand. For instance, we all know that lead is harmful, but when multiple sources of lead exist it's impossible to prove (to the standard correctly required by the courts) that this company's lead caused your particular illness. It's similarly impossible to prove that any particular cancer-causing agent caused any particular cancer, even when we know statistically that it has raised the cancer risk profile of millions of people, and therefore been a causative factor in many deaths.
If we insist that the only mechanism for redress be individual companies held to account in individual cases, we either give up on the idea that corporate behavior can be aligned with the public interest, or (worse?) we make sure that politically-disfavored companies will be scapegoated by the media or the courts, while better-connected players get away with anything at all.
Please allow me to forestall one possible counter-argument: if you, as my Libertarian-ish relatives do, reject outright the idea of "public interest", then we won't have much to say to each other: our world-views are simply too different. Otherwise, I'm interested in what you have to say.
That said, here is my principle: at any time, the government is orders of magnitude more powerful than any corporation. I think it is proper, in some cases, for the government itself to act as a plaintiff, to aggregate evidence, bring suit, and prove causation statistically. I can't delimit that role precisely, but I side with you that in some cases only the government has access to all necessary evidence.
And no, I don't agree with the idea of "public interest." Any claim that "the public interest" supersedes private rights means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests of others.
As a practical matter, that's untrue in many, many places around the world, and there are no reasons why it couldn't become true in the USA, or any other advanced democracy. Even if you don't think that is yet the case where you live, can you at least agree with me that many leaders of / investors in large corporations want it to be, and are working towards that end?
I think your position in your second paragraph is at odds with your position in the third.
> your second paragraph is at odds with your third
No. The government acting as plaintiff is still retaliatory force: harm occurred, the state helps identify the perpetrator. That's not "public interest" overriding private rights, it's the government protecting individual rights by standing in for many individuals who share a common injury.
And yes, corporate leaders want political power. That's cronyism. They want to use force because they can't win in a free market. It's a road to dictatorship, but the road is laid by the principle of "public interest," not unlimited profit motives.
There's no such thing as "the public," only individuals. When one treats "the public" as a blank check to override private rights, one is really saying: some people get sacrificed to others. The taxi industry lobbying to ban Uber isn't about safety or competition. "Affordable housing" mandates that force landlords to subsidize strangers aren't compassion. This institutionalized cold civil war won't end until the state stops pickign winners.
> standing in for many individuals who share a common injury.
Sounds like a synonym for "public interest" to me! Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it?
I'd like to know how you'd handle the case of a new industrial plant (let's even say it's a brand new technology) that will exhaust lead into the atmosphere. Does the government have to wait until there's demonstrable harm, and then lodge a suit in court? Isn't it... cleaner (for want of a better word, and no pun intended) to have a law in place that says "No Lead-spewing (as defined by [reasonable technical standard]) Allowed", and prevent it being built altogether? From another angle, under which paradigm would hypothetical investors prefer to operate?
In fact, and this is true, industry often requests regulations be put in place, because they'd like to be certain that their investments won't be subjected to the uncertainty of (private or public) litigation. Yes, this can be malign (in the cases of corruption, or regulatory capture, or incumbents freezing out smaller competitors), but at its most basic the request can be seen as benign: "we'd like to comply with community standards; please write down what they are, and we'll follow them" - no violence required or implied. It's also, and to my way of thinking more importantly, a way to break out of prisoner's dilemma equilibria, where all players can agree the sector as a whole will be better off without defectors, but appeal to an outside, neutral party to keep themselves honest.
I'm also curious about what seems to be your premise that The Courts are separate from The State. That's not how I think of them at all! I mean, aren't they, kind of by definition? After all, if one ignores a judgement - even civil - isn't the ruling ultimately enforced by, well, Force?
> your second paragraph is at odds with your third
Well, well. That didn’t take long.
The teenager was a carefully chosen comparison. The state’s authority over the citizen is similar to a parent’s authority over their child. This is quite humiliating and emasculating. And I agree with libertarians on one point: if the state is against you, you don’t stand a chance. A healthy approach to this has two components. (1) You make sure that the authority is benevolent or at least allows enough leeway for a good life. (2) You create enclaves of freedom. The teenager hides his weed and smokes it secretly, or smokes his cigarettes on the way to school. The citizen leaves some income untaxed and runs a red light now and then. What does the teenager who categorically rejects parental authority do? Run away and become homeless? The difference between them and an adult is that the latter should have enough sense to realize that the romantic notion of a life free from the burden of authority ultimately leads to sadness, coldness, loneliness, and misery—or, if it succeeds at all, merely re-establishes structures in which forms of authority are entrenched. Libertarians feel most oppressed by the state every time they have to wait at a red light or obey a speed limit. They fail to see that, in doing so, they are submitting to a principle of order that is necessary for road traffic to function at all.
> Is that a semantic difference, or do you think there's something substantive to it?
That is a very important point! Philosophers distinguish between the particular and the universal. Libertarians recognize only the particular and reject any notion of the universal, because it negates all particularities. For them, a group is always just an accumulation of individuals. A genuine community—which consists precisely in the participating individuals restricting themselves to some extent for the sake of the community—is inconceivable to them as something positive. Hence the infamous Thatcher quote: “... and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families ...” That is an ideological divide that cannot be bridged through discussion. I’ve gone over this enough times already.
You describe people who advocate freedom as both mystics indifferent to reality and pragmatists without principle. Which is it?
But... Yeah. I'm in much more agreement with your point of view, and he's still Wrong On The Internet, so here we are. :-)
"Public interest" today implies a conflict with private interests: a new sports arena, "affordable" housing, protecting domestic jobs. So no, government-as-plaintiff doesn't count.
Personally, I'd define the public interest as interests common to all men: freedom, not sacrifices of some to others. But that's not the modern meaning of it.
> Does the government have to wait until there’s demonstrable harm
Anticipating harm is proper when the decision is irreversible. Example: nobody has a right to physically block a public entrance. That's a right violation you can prohibit in advance. Same with pollution: objective laws ("you may not emit substance X beyond concentration Y") set a clear boundary without dictatign production methods.
But there's no harm to anticipate in, say, Lightning vs. USB-C.
> your premise that The Courts are separate from The State
If you got it from the way I contrasted courts with regulatory agencies, I actually contrasted the way the state can wield force: retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper). Other than that, the courts and state aren't separated.
You are correct about where I (over) interpreted your view of the court system. Apologies for that, and thanks for the clarification. However, I still don't think I understand the distinction you draw between "retaliatory (proper) vs initiatory (improper)". Would you then say that there shouldn't be a permitting / approval system (because that's anticipatory), so enforcement should be limited to taking pollution readings and acting (in retaliation, natch) after a facility is built? Even if you can sustain that position in principle, I think it would be impractical, across a number of dimensions, in reality. But, it's possible that I misunderstood that point, so please explain further.
I also note a segment from one of your earlier comments, where you advocated for "total separation of state and economics". In my view this is utterly impossible. Regulating pollutants is an intervention that (properly, we agree!) works to the economic disadvantage of pollutors. Even more fundamentally, a (functional, large scale) market economy depends entirely on the state's ability to adjudicate and enforce (at least) contractual terms. I don't think your view can be sustained.
What does that mean?
Oh, that's if it wasn't actually a shell company in the first place that has no assets.
A good portion of the things you mention existed before we had food regulations, you could sue the business if you had issues with them. The problem is the vast portion of the population is far too poor to do that. Regulations stop the harm before it happens.
As I said earlier in this thread:
> Determining the best means of applying the principle of suing corporations in practice is an very complex question that belongs to the philosophy of law.
Ah yes, the school of theory that says it's better to clean up the spilled milk after its been contaminated with uranium waste.
Further, the principle doesn’t deny retaliating in advance when violence can be objectively anticipated.
Add to that a company can cause a trillion dollars of damage while having only a billion dollars on hand. Criminal charges don't fix things, if they did there wouldn't be murderers in jail.
The... government?
If this vested power remains unchecked and unlimited, the government will violate the rights of its own citizens. That's why we should limit its power to retaliatory use.
Standardization is a very valuable asset, I don't deny that. But:
1. Standardization is not limited to forced standardization;
2. It's better to live in a world not fully standardized than to accept the premise that it's right to violate rights for a good cause. The "good cause" shifts the question from "should rights be violated?" to "what kind of violation do you want?" Once we accept that, we lose to totalitarianism. A man who says "let's violate a tiny fraction of rights" would lose to a man who declares "let's violate rights of thousands."
How do you account for the right to clean water and sanitation [0] without state infrastructure, just as an example?
It feels like you care a lot about violence and force, at the expense of (imo) more important issues societies face.
[0] https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights-water-and-s...
Trying to wield sacrifices at the point of a gun (by an official or legislator) is the most important and disturbing modern issue. It paves the road to all actual social conflicts, unrest, and misunderstanding.
And it's unjust to assume humanity wouldn't help unless forced to.
By calling upon sacrifices, the first target would be engineers, plumbers, and utility workers. Forcing the people who actually produce and deliver clean water isn't justice.
Punishing and preventing it is the core purpose of the state.
Fun fact about the common law in fact is that it came into existence because the English government after the Norman conquest needed a unified theory of law for the king's courts that was distinct from manorial and canon laws. 1154 Henry 2 the Plantagenet ascended the throne and wanted a code of law that would apply everywhere in the realm as opposed to local laws, the aforementioned manorial laws, as well as being secular, unlike canon law.
So without the government, you wouldn't have this common law your legal theory relies on.
This is a common conservative trope. We don't need regulation because customers can always sue. (Famous interview with Milton Friedman.) Good luck finding a lawyer who will sue because of some glass in your soup can, or, for more serious cases, who can out last (or match the spending of) a billion dollar corporation. Yes, sometimes the underdog wins. Rich people can sue, and may not need the governments regulatory help. For most people, there is absolutely no recourse, particular for technically complex things, like prescription drugs.
The idea that the legal system can consistently make better informed technical decisions than government scientists is not well supported by the evidence.
Only because there is a court system provided by the state and because there is regulation that says that soup doesn't contain glass. Otherwise the manufacturer can just say "You didn't want glass in your soup, sucks, but for us glass in soup is part of the accepted distribution. Be happy that you got additional glass for free." .
If USB C had been so important to me I wouldn't have bought iPhones all those years.
Throughout its life, Lightning suffered from "black pin plague" where when springs in the port wore out, the power pin would start arcing. Now you have a cable with poor connectivity on the power pin, and you use this cable in another Apple device and it starts arcing on that device as well, causing that device to start transmitting this disease. It was a terrible design and USB-C does not have it.
https://ioshacker.com/iphone/why-the-fourth-pin-on-your-ligh...
I understand the added difficulty of making a version with a different port. Again, if it was Uber superior, it would have made for very good advertisemebt for apple.
Lightning was a dead-end connector that was only kept around to keep the Made-for-iPhone moat drawbridge up.
USB-C makes the right design choice in putting the springs in the cable. Those wear out over time. I've never seen the male part of the female USB-C break, but I'm sure it's possible. But reversing this would require that the springs on the USB-C cable are on the outside, and those are quite fragile, so that sounds like a worse idea.
USB-C is mostly a good design.
I know anecdotes don't mean anything, but I have. Every USB-C phone I've ever had, apart from my iPhone that I currently use, ended up with having completely worn out connectors after two-three years of use. They stop holding cables in firm enough and start only making the connection when holding the cable at an angle.
The Lightning port iPhone that I used for 3 years however handled my usage just fine (just tried it now and it feels just like it did new), and the USB-C one I've had for half a year seems to be holding up fine as well. These I used with a mix of cheap Aliexpress cables and the genuine Apple ones.
Who gets to decide that I have to treat my devices that I pay for like fragile glass vases.
I do both QA and Development and pretty competent at both. I almost never make broken things or poorly thought out because I know this negative feedback loop will continually make the situation worse. Lack of empathy for people that use products just leads to issues like Windows taskbar not even being able to search for applications. Its all the same thought process that leads to the result.
The flaw is that USB-IF didn't require marking faster cables. Putting a blue ring, stripe, or dot would have solved the problem.
It was a mistake to conflate flexible power delivery and data transfer, you rarely need both at the same time. It's possible to design a better and cheaper 3 or 4 pin power delivery standard that can use higher power. But the law now says USB-C and good luck ever changing that.
2. Nobody was going to add a second port for charging when USB can handle fast charging already. And if you need to charge in a damp environment then use wireless.
3. I'm pretty sure you can add a second port and the EU law doesn't mind at all
And assuming USB 2.0, how much cheaper do you expect a simpler port to be?
And our helpdesk had more broken lightning connectors than anything else in shop that's ~ 50/50 PC/Mac