Carte Blanche: The Right to Repair
Kilian Seiler
How do you know that you own something? If you paid an agreed-upon price for anything from a house to a cell phone, is it entirely yours from then on? That is a question that has become more hotly contested with each new technology and software update. Many manufacturers claim that they sold only the hardware, not the software. That costs extra. Furthermore, any repairs can only be made by the manufacturer because it turns out that the hardware is proprietary as well, and you are only renting it. These actions are taken by companies that supply the tools for the livelihood of farmers, and the basic tools and amenities that we all use in our daily lives. Farming, transportation, communication, and even our hobbies are restricted by the belief and the government's heavy-handed legislature, that we don't own the things that we pay for with our hard-earned money. If we do own them, then do we have the right to repair them, or is that not up to the consumers?
Farming is among the world's oldest professions and one of the most important for the survival of the human race. The work is hard and demanding in every sense of the word. It is a business where breaking even is seen as a good year. Nature is a powerful and incredibly unpredictable force that can just as easily bring prosperity as it does destruction and calamity. It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand that equipment breaks and parts wear out. Farmers aren't ones to complain about it. It's part of the job. However, the very idea that they don't have the right to repair their tractors that they depend on for their income can only lead to disastrous consequences. It can lead to subscription monopolies that would destroy industries and individual liberties. With farmers not being allowed to repair their farm equipment and facing fines, repossessions, or jail time if they tried to do it on their own or use cheaper non-manufacturer parts, there is no other path than the destruction of the farming industry and family-owned farms entirely.
If the right to repair being denied isn't bad enough, corporations program the software that's factory-installed to fail after a certain amount of time. Apple was caught doing just that in a landmark court case in France. The company required regular software updates that slowed down their iPhones and degraded the battery life over time. This ensured that consumers would have to regularly purchase new phones and ensured that no one can hold onto their old phones for too long. Of course, if someone wants to keep their phone, they have to take it to an Apple Store, buy a battery directly from them, and then pay all of the installation and repair fees that follow. From a purely business perspective, this makes excellent sense to ensure regular profit increases and a continual rise in the price of stocks that keep shareholders happy. From another perspective, focused on the long-term health of a business, the practice can be incredibly detrimental to the company. Consumers lose confidence in the company, and multiple lawsuits and investigations cost the company money and devalue the stock. Where does that leave the consumer? They're now out thousands of dollars and lose their connection with the modern world that allows them to communicate with others and conduct personal and professional business.
The government is also involved in denying the average person the right to repair. But instead of focusing on a particular profession, they instead focused on privately owned vehicles. That tool that most people use to make a living, take their kids to soccer practice, or that teenagers use to taste freedom for the first time. EPA regulations have forced car manufacturers to place restrictions on the vehicles they produce to meet government-mandated emission levels. The laws and rules extend to their owners once they've bought. The government thinks so. There has been a conscious effort to control the aftermarket modifications to cars by cracking down on auto shops and parts manufacturers. These efforts to control carbon emissions through bureaucratic control have hurt businesses and individuals alike. It reduces the choices that consumers can make for repairs and, if they so choose, modification of their vehicles, and it strangles small businesses and communities that rely on the revenue of those modifications and repairs. At the same time, it may be suitable for large manufacturers who can meet the criteria set by the EPA and absorb the extra costs; it also ensures that there is little to no competition for their business. All while consumers are forced to pay higher prices for fewer choices and programmed unreliability.
Where is the line to be drawn on property ownership? Property rights are the bedrock of any stable and civil society. If the individual does not have the right to have and maintain private property as they see fit, then how can it be a free and fair society? Corporations are designed to provide goods and services in exchange for profit. There is nothing inherently wrong with the exchange. However, when the government either fails to act when those companies take unfair advantage of the consumer, or decides that there is a desired end state that must be reached regardless of the cost, then it is the individual consumers who suffer. It doesn't have to be a profoundly philosophical approach or one with incredible legal layers to solve this problem. If there is an exchange of money for a good, then the company cannot omit any truths about the product, nor design it to fail and require the consumer to come to them for repairs or replacements alone. There must be informed consent, where all the cards are placed on the table, and the government is there to ensure only that. In turn, it must be constrained from picking winners or losers for either policies or corporations. For the free market and individual liberties to flourish in a free society, the property rights of its citizens must be respected. Otherwise, there will be no freedom to be had for anyone.