![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasThis year, Massachusetts has three questions on the ballot: one which forces auto manufacturers to provide all the information they provide to their dealerships also to independent mechanics, on the same terms; one which covers human euthanasia; one which covers medical marijuana. And, honestly, I'm only COMPLETELY sure how I'm going to vote on Question 1.
I am totally in favor of the Right to Repair law. The auto manufacturers have, as a matter of policy, provided preferential pricing on their repair manuals, diagnostic codes, and all that sort of thing, to their own dealerships. Bruce, down at Tremont Street Garage, CAN get everything that the Toyota dealership up on Rte 1 can get -- but Bruce has to pay ten, twenty, even a hundred times more for that same information. The Right to Repair law disallows that kind of preferential pricing.
Why might people vote against it? Well, the dealerships have a whole bunch of reasons, which are basically BS. You might vote against it on libertarian grounds, of course, seeing this as simply a free market argument. You could argue that an entity that sells a product has the right to sell that product to another associated entity at a discounted price, and that this law would be an unfair imposition of governmental power to restrict free economic action. I could understand that reasoning. But the actual counterarguments the auto manufacturers and dealerships have been putting out are basically doubletalk, FUD, and BS. And, well, I'm NOT a libertarian, and I believe that a "free market" requires regulation, in PRECISELY this manner.
Actually, come to think of it -- this EXACTLY pits the two definitions of "free market" against one another. On the one hand, we have the definition which says that a free market is one that is free from governmental interference, and which allows entities to engage in any economic activity they wish, so long as it is free from fraud and coercion. On the other hand, we have the definition which says that a free market is one which is regulated such that no entity may use its monopolistic power in one area to restrain trade on its competitors.
It's a question of, "who is a free market free FROM, exactly?" Enacting the law increases the control of the government over the market, but decreases the control of the corporations.
Me, I believe that one of the very PURPOSES of government is to regulate and protect people against entities that have no discernible moral sense -- psychopaths, terrorists, hostile governments, corporations. In the case of corporations, to regulate them in such a way to use their powers for good -- because well-regulated corporations ARE a source of great power, which CAN be used for great good. But they're like fire. Controlled, they heat our homes, make our cars run, make our lives more pleasant, more fulfilled, just generally better. Uncontrolled, they run rampant and devour everything.
Question 1 regulates a market to prevent a larger entity from maintaining an unbalanced playing field. This allows larger and smaller entities to compete on a more equal footing. This is a type of corporate regulation that I am, in general, in favor of, and so I'm in favor of Question 1.
I am totally in favor of the Right to Repair law. The auto manufacturers have, as a matter of policy, provided preferential pricing on their repair manuals, diagnostic codes, and all that sort of thing, to their own dealerships. Bruce, down at Tremont Street Garage, CAN get everything that the Toyota dealership up on Rte 1 can get -- but Bruce has to pay ten, twenty, even a hundred times more for that same information. The Right to Repair law disallows that kind of preferential pricing.
Why might people vote against it? Well, the dealerships have a whole bunch of reasons, which are basically BS. You might vote against it on libertarian grounds, of course, seeing this as simply a free market argument. You could argue that an entity that sells a product has the right to sell that product to another associated entity at a discounted price, and that this law would be an unfair imposition of governmental power to restrict free economic action. I could understand that reasoning. But the actual counterarguments the auto manufacturers and dealerships have been putting out are basically doubletalk, FUD, and BS. And, well, I'm NOT a libertarian, and I believe that a "free market" requires regulation, in PRECISELY this manner.
Actually, come to think of it -- this EXACTLY pits the two definitions of "free market" against one another. On the one hand, we have the definition which says that a free market is one that is free from governmental interference, and which allows entities to engage in any economic activity they wish, so long as it is free from fraud and coercion. On the other hand, we have the definition which says that a free market is one which is regulated such that no entity may use its monopolistic power in one area to restrain trade on its competitors.
It's a question of, "who is a free market free FROM, exactly?" Enacting the law increases the control of the government over the market, but decreases the control of the corporations.
Me, I believe that one of the very PURPOSES of government is to regulate and protect people against entities that have no discernible moral sense -- psychopaths, terrorists, hostile governments, corporations. In the case of corporations, to regulate them in such a way to use their powers for good -- because well-regulated corporations ARE a source of great power, which CAN be used for great good. But they're like fire. Controlled, they heat our homes, make our cars run, make our lives more pleasant, more fulfilled, just generally better. Uncontrolled, they run rampant and devour everything.
Question 1 regulates a market to prevent a larger entity from maintaining an unbalanced playing field. This allows larger and smaller entities to compete on a more equal footing. This is a type of corporate regulation that I am, in general, in favor of, and so I'm in favor of Question 1.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-26 12:41 am (UTC)One reason people might vote against it is that the legislature passed the 'right to repair' bill - about a month after the ballot questions were set, so it was too late to remove this question. For a while the proponents of the question decided to abandon their campaign, and recommend a vote of "no", but then they changed their minds and decided they'd like to see this question pass anyway. However, the case for it is certainly weaker now that that bill was passed and signed.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-26 12:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-26 12:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-26 12:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-10-26 01:14 am (UTC)