meanduck

> IMO it's a very good law for the population/nation/citizens.

But this is how Govts make enemies in business communities. Actions like these what made China 2nd most wealthy nation in record time.

> Ignoring that it will help small businesses.

How ? Common sense tell me this will put more legal requirements; those are never fun.

> being able to do what you want with the things you bought should be a right, not a privilege

Absolutely. But this forces Apple/others. It does not release customers from restrictions. If there are such any restrictions, Govts would be with in their rights to make such user/customer agreements unenforcable. But again, thats what not happening here.

> Your car stops working because you haven't made your mandatory overpriced yearly checkup? Sounds neat

How about you look for more favourable company ? But you know thats what people do. Such anti-customer corporations you are describing does not last for long in the market unless ofcourse Govts are helping them in someway, as the history shows.

> Also having access to at least service manuals (if not complete schematics) can help repair and reuse electronics, which is great for the environment, low wage workers/families and developing nations in general

Irrelevent. You are curbing liberties. Thats the argument against the law.

From the article:

> Right to repair bills, which are currently making their way through eight states (Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, Wyoming, Minnesota, Kansas, Illinois, and Massachusetts), would require electronics manufacturers to make repair parts and diagnostic and repair manuals available to independent repair professionals and consumers, not just "authorized" repair companies.

This seems like forcing Apple rather than releasing consumers. Just another example of over interfering Govts.

Though this part does suggest some govt strong arming.

> be highly encouraged (tax benefits etc)

Also note that many (including me) believe that taxes are already non-consensual and extortion by Govts.

> Does it matter?

Yes there is a pretty big difference. Its not wealth redistribution. You are just spending the money created by natural resource. Its Govt/Peoples wealth to spend as they see fit.

Here some official fact http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/data...

For 2012-13 FY, 12.5 Million (1%) paid any Income tax, averaging Rs 21,000 ($350). The 3 individuals in the top-bracket of Rs 100-500 crore ($16M-$83M) paid a total tax of Rs 437 crore ($72M) — resulting in an average tax outgo of Rs 145.80 crore ($24M).

Indian statists cant help but screw the country funders even more. Disgustingly inhumane.

> "Open source, but licensed under the AGPL.", says the article. There is no "but" here. The AGPL is the very definition of "open source", because it defends openness. If you have nothing to fear from open source, you have nothing to fear from the AGPL.

If you want the project to be openly collabrative but quasi-free, calling it Open Source would be hijacking the term. Call it Social Justice Licence or something.

Thats why most economically obvious thing for a neighbourhood is to own the infrastructure not rent it. If it were not for "i-do-everything" govts, neighbourhoods would have learnt this long ago. Even Govts owning would have been ok, but then we would not have crony capitalism.

And I cant believe I have to type this on HN of all places.

No one denies that monopolies are risky. In fact this is the argument against anti-trust regulations, which is basically a monopoly granted to very few people (which in practice, means a guranteed monopoly to a colluding subgroup of political class). There are probably more cases of harm done by this monopoly than by corporations monopolies.

Also one major difference, Corporations have to earn their monopolies where the political class dont. Only one of these two will not think twice before abusing it.

We already have a protection agaisnt monopolies aka free market.

What if

    jury_of_peers = random12(peers(defendant) + peers(prosecutor)) OR random6(peers(defendant)) + random6(peers(prosecutor));
    peers(X) is declared/set by X. num(peers(X)) >= num_citizens/10 so that corrupt X cant set 12 yes men.
    This would incentivize X to be good to peers(X).

The worst case is neither worst president nor worst damage possible by a presidential power. But its the worst 51% votes can do. Because there will come someone who will say anything to get these votes and people will vote themselves into dystopia.

It should only be seen as temporary solution though. The permanent solution would be to reclassify passowrds, fingerprints, blood samples etc as testimony.

Making prosecuting the <0.1% easier at the cost of making 99.9%+ vulnerable should always be avoided.

> Trump is a symptom of something that was already there probably decades in the making

And the something is: Democratic entitlement. Larger population is feeling the world owe them happy life, free healthcare and the all the things that successful have "took" from them.

And ofcourse its not sustainable. Democracy is done. I give it at most two more Trumps.

PS: I preassume its ok to talk politics in political threads.

Oh cmon at least be realistic. Are you sure, 5 years from now, Apple is going to be as powerful as today ?

Market always tend toword decentralisation. More so in AnCap one.

> while allowing corporations to flourish - institutions where citizens have absolutely no say in

Wrong. Corporations are the one of most sensitive organisation types. Stop giving them money, see how soon and peacfully they die. Remind me a state that has given its power peacefully ?

This was not about Trump. This was about the state he represents.

No its not a good thing. Nothing stops people from following people like Stallman. This is a poor execuse for over-interfering statism and it will backfire with event like Brexit/Trump.

Not american but as an anti-statist, Im enjoying this.

But EC's recent unpridictable behaviour[1] only gives negative hopes.

[1] https://www.itic.org/news-events/techwonk-blog/arguing-again...

I have no sympathy Im afraid. People who cheer to rob certain section of society gets to feel the burn in turn. Karma is a bitch as the saying goes. I just hope lessons have been learnt.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-statism The people are the ones who gave their blessing and made state powerful because state promised to share the loot with them. If only people have resisted the temptation ...

"Dont do somthing that you dont want to be done to yourself." is probably the reason that give birth to every basic human right.

So yes its absolutely appropriate. You dont have to be even a libertarian to realize that.

Everything is a contract including basic human rights. By birth, you have not signed any. You dont have anything that you can lose. But usually you would implicitly sign "right to freedom" and "property laws" with people around you.

So you did not lose right to move in private properties (because you did not have any) but you gain right/assurance to move freely in public properties without danger to your person.

If aliens invade earth and set their own property laws it would not be stealing. It would be nothing. Because we dont have any contracts with aliens that we can claim aliens have broken.

Right to freedom is not your birth right. Its society given.

Theft implies concept of ownership exist. Proudhons says ownership imples theft. Its just useless nonsense.

So my point was not that if something is accepted in society ==> Its right. There is no such thing as right/wrong/moral/etc. Its about consistencies in the contracts we humans sign with each other.

If something is being done against someone's will ==> Basic Human Right is being violated.

Thus Taxation by the definition, is a human right violation for many.

> Consider Proudhons famous "property is theft" for a moment.

> His point is that enforcing property rights explicitly deprives others. If something is scarce, then the moment I wall it off, others become poorer for it.

I keep hearing this argument. And its so obviously illogical.

Establishing the concept/law of property and property ownership is probably the first thing a society does as soon as it gets formed.

The laws that powers banks to withhold someone money are the same laws that Govts use to maximize tax revenue. Drug/Terrorism is mostly irrelevent.

So you are saying we are gonna let banks get away with it because Govts cant find better revenue source ? The amount of overreaching laws just to ensure Govts revenue is staggering. I shudder to think what would happen if UBI is added into the mix.

> And it falls down as soon as you want to enforce any other rules, like say, property rights.

You are right. For this desirable, two universal consents are needed: 1. NAP 2. Land Registry (eg blockchain based).

I claim that there will be 99%+ consent among inhabitants of a perticular region, which is good enough.

This have to be mentioned that no society (ancapism or socialism) can function without some minimum level of cooperation from all which is safe assumption because we are after all social animals. When this characterstic is not found, people migrate as they have been doing since ages.

Im perfectly ok if HN bans all political news.

> we must also allow people to pool their labor together to gain collective leverage and reap greater returns (also known as labor unions, worker protections, etc.). Having one without the other does not appear ethically justifiable to me, and rigging laws to strengthen one significantly at the expense of the other is similarly unjustifiable.

And free-market does not stop them in any way. In fact FM give them most freedom. So FM favours/disfavours none.