In some sense the government, which occasionally is run by sensible people, does save the day. Take Portland Oregon, or Curitiba Brazil as examples. They saw gains in multi modal design that benefited all citizens, not just the privileged elite who can afford the luxury of mono transit design.
back
1 comments
Maybe this doesn't apply to your govt, but I live in the US and I don't have any confidence in the govt to "fix" tech related problems and get e.g. right to repair right.
Why?
Because they can't even solve the classic problems in front of them. Primarily healthcare. Healthcare is a thing that affects everyone. It's a problem as old as time. And it's vital to life. If the government can't get this right, what chance is there that we can trust them to regulate something like right to repair.
I haven't double checked the following statement, so YMMV:
"Universal health care is such a complex beast that only 32 of the world's 33 developed nations have been able to make it work."
(In my country, it is illegal to be uninsured. The flip side of this is that it is therefore illegal for an insurance company to refuse coverage. Another corollary is that insurance is personal, without employers as unneeded middlemen.)
I'm going to guess at that country being Germany.
There's an edge case where if you have the "state" insurance, then leave the country, have private health care abroad, and then move back, the health insurance situation gets difficult. You're no longer allowed to get the "state" health insurance, and must go private. But the private ones can basically rack you for the maximum amount if you're old enough, so you can end up not being able to afford the insurance. At that point, you're now breaking the law, as I understood it, because you're without health care insurance in a country that mandates it by law.
> "Universal health care is such a complex beast that only 32 of the world's 33 developed nations have been able to make it work."
Please note that I didn't say Universal health care. I'm a consumer of healthcare and so I'm qualified to judge it as a problem, but I'm not going to prescribe the optimal path - I leave that to the real experts.
I'll also say Universal Health Care =/= health care solved. I've spoken to plenty of people across UK/Canada/EU who have a lot of complaints about their system.
Since the Affordable Healthcare Act, it is also illegal to be uninsured in the US, and illegal for insurance companies to refuse coverage (pre-existing condition).
Excellent! The Old Country does progress after all, if in fits and starts...
Right to repair has a simple solution. Apply a 100%, 1,000%, or whatever percent necessary excise tax on manufactured products.
With a sufficiently high premium for new products, consumers will automatically start prioritizing device longevity and/or repairability when making their purchasing decisions.
Solving the supply/demand/patent/changing demographics/liability issues of healthcare seem far more complicated.
> Apply a 100%, 1,000%, or whatever percent necessary excise tax on manufactured products. With a sufficiently high premium for new products, consumers will automatically start prioritizing device longevity and/or repairability when making their purchasing decisions.
It’s a simple solution if you only care about device longevity and nothing else. You’re basically proposing that we vote to make new iPhones 50% more expensive.
Um no, I don’t think I’ll be voting on that. Good luck getting support for your bill.
I am very well aware that there is no broad political support for reducing our consumption. That is why I have no qualms about consuming as much as I do. However, I will support effective measures like this and denounce lip service measures like recycling plastics or measures that target only certain populations.
I don't support this idea, but a percentage-based tax may actually cause the opposite effect (from what you describe as your goal). A flat tax (fixed number of dollars) is more likely to achieve your aims, and has actually been implemented with that result in the past. The example that comes to mind for me is the United Kingdom's flat tax on French wine (a long time ago).
Why would a percentage based tax cause the opposite effect?
A flat tax does not make sense to me. It would have the least effect on the most expensive items, which is what you want to be most repairable. The more expensive the product, the more repairable it should be.
Flat taxes drive out the cheaper, lower quality items. Percentage taxes make the more expensive items even less affordable, and often drives people to lower quality items.
https://thisdayinwinehistory.com/the-effects-of-british-tari...
Wine is not a relevant comparison in this situation, since it cannot be more repairable or have longevity compared to other wine.
For a product you can use over and over and/or repair, a percentage tax would make it so buying the low quality version 5 times is more expensive than buying the high quality version 1 time.
For example, right now I buy a pair of shoes every 6 months or so from Costco for $25/$30.
With a 100% excise tax, these shoes would cost me $100 or more, and a higher quality pair of $100 shoes that lasts 2 years would interest me instead.
If you have any actual data to share, please do. That said, I am not inclined to discuss this on the basis of anecdotes and personal insights, especially because I think your aims are misguided.
I write all of this while wearing ten-year-old boots which have been re-soled twice.
The government gets a lot of things right and has solved a lot of problems. It doesn't get everything right and it can't solve every problem, of course.
I think that it's not logically coherent to say that government is worthless just because it hasn't managed to resolve your favorite issue yet.
Don't get me wrong -- the government is no panacea, and sometimes it can even make a problem worse. But it is a powerful force that can and does address and resolve real issues.
> just because it hasn't managed to resolve your favorite issue yet
Healthcare is not my favorite issue. It’s a fundamental human issue. That’s why I selected it.
In comparison, right to repair is a niche “favorite issue”.
One of these things is trillions of dollars in the national budget, the other, barely any one even thinks about.
Why do I want lawmakers to bike shed on right to repair while healthcare is unsolved?
We're on the same page here. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's reasonable to think that government is worthless just because it hasn't resolved that problem yet. It's an absolute crime that the problem is unresolved, yes, and the reason it's unresolved is because of the various flavors of dysfunction and corruption that has yet to be dealt with. However, that doesn't mean that there can't still be good action in other areas.
I don't think government is bikeshedding on right to repair, either. The amount of time and effort being put into that issue is a tiny fraction of the amount of time and effort being put into health care issues.
You could always try and run and fix that yourself. Or propose solutions to those in charge. Or rally support for a movement to garner the attention of officials. No system is perfect. Perhaps starting a tech movement with code.
I've certainly thought about it. But I don't think I have what it take to win an election. And yeah the fundamental problem with democracy imo is that skill to win an election does not equal the skill it takes to govern. We systemically conduct "job interviews" for politicians on the wrong set of skills.
I also do alot (in my opinion) to improve the world in my corner. It's not possible for 1 person to fix healthcare AND climate change AND education AND homelessness, etc.
How do you know you could fix all if you haven't shown you can fix one? And finding a way to talk to someone in charge is far easier than running, small steps work too. For context, Teachers are protesting en route to pick up my dog around where I live. Didn't know that till now.
> How do you know you could fix all if you haven't shown you can fix one?
I never claimed I could. In fact I never claimed I could fix even one one of those things.
I mean maybe you could. Who knows. But you are correct. Read in haste. But you did frame it in a hero as one person. I'd think it could maybe be lead by someone. But would require cooperation.
It's not possible to provide the best healthcare to everyone.
But it is possible to provide some health care to all. Which is a better situation than some with excellent and many with zero.
Some is provided to all in the US.
Not really. People die in the US because they can't afford to get even basic health care.
Emergency rooms are required to serve everybody.
Yes, but they are only required to stabilize people, not to treat them further. Some people eventually reach a point where they can't get to an emergency room fast enough to be stabilized.