Is there even any data or evidence to support the claims that letting farmers repair their tractors with OEM parts is going to result in deaths and injuries?
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.
The "think of the farmers!" excuse is the exact same as the "think of the children!"
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.
People are going to lobby for the things they want. If they are targeting more money they will lobby against laws that hurt that.
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.
The entire point of electing someone to represent you is that they should take care of things for you without bothering you too much. Imaging you hire a lawyer to represent you in court and you constantly need to petition your lawyer for changes to your legal strategy, or you hire a doctor and you constantly need to correct their course of treatment. In such cases, would you say you've hired a good doctor or lawyer? Why is it the responsibility of the masses to petition their representatives? Why isn't it the responsibility of the representative to understand an issue and reach out to possibly effected constituents for a wholistic view of an issue?
The comparison to a lawyer or doctor doesn't work.
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.
An elected official isn’t just your official. They represent everyone in your district. Even the people you disagree with on something. This is a big difference from your analogy.
They are going to listen to the squeaky wheel in their base.
On the other hand you should by no means let your doctor decide everything, you need to be your own advocate for your own health and weigh in on making decisions regarding risk and benefits of treatments.
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.
I'm colored by just having heard https://www.numberphile.com/podcast/hannah-fry-orchid-cancer which was a podcast episode about cancer treatment and choices - and it says, there's more to it than this. Doctors may not value your life quality as high as you do etc.
>"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."
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.
Unfortunately, even if the people care, and let their reps know, it doesn't really help. "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
Problem is I doubt most voters really care about right to repair. I’m sure if you picked someone off the street and explained it they’d say “yeah that sounds pretty” good, but at the end of the day, when they go to vote or when they engage in politics at all, they probably don’t care about whether a candidate supports right to repair, they’re likely going to focus on some popular issue, he that abortion, taxes, big foreign affairs, guns, culture war topic of the week, etc.
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.
People love all sorts of ideas that are "important" to them like right to repair, climate change, or anything else, but as soon as that person is wearing the wrong color tie and is against taxes/abortion/guns/foreign policy, then it doesn't matter so much anymore to them.
I vote to defend the individual right of people to belong in the US even if they won't vote for "individual rights".
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?
>I vote to defend the individual right of people to belong in the US even if they won't vote for "individual rights".
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.
It seems you are the one who is confused. The America you are describing does not exist. The idea you have, that people can stay as long as they don't oppose what "hitovst thinks is best" is pretty arrogant.
> 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.
I'm a capitalist, but this blows my mind: if there is a no-kidding demand for repairable equipment, then why is that demand unmet?
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.
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.
This is the 4 most popular comment after: the frontend is a mess, cryto is a scan and rust will replace c. But still more popular than: everyone is moving from sf, every programmer should learn haskell or global warming is scary..
Some would say that crony capitalism is the inevitable end state of capitalism, and I'm not entirely inclined to disagree with them--if we do succeed in getting the cronyism out, how do we then stop it from returning?
It's a swinging pendulum for sure. Crony capitalism is at one end. Is it end state, that's another question. Can you swing it back the other way? Certainly but you need some kind of counter force.
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.
The fact that similar legislation is widespread is not a defense. These laws create monopolies, with the "justification" that not doing so would cause too much competition and thus high prices...
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
"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.