[DrFlipper]

Freedom is the key component of capitalism, in the purist sense. Including the freedom to trade the "right to repair" for other benefits, such as a superior vehicle due to higher integration, reliability and peace of mind knowing that any work will have been done by authorised repairers, lower up-front cost afforded by vendor lock-in, etc.

If people wish to voluntarily trade vehicles without the "right to repair", that's their choice, that's capitalism. The state intervening in transactions one way or the other is a violation of the capitalist ideal.

[javajosh]

I think this ignores the complexity cost on the consumer. If every product has a different set of rules, the consumer will not be able to know them or follow them. This is already a big problem with long and unique EULAs for software. This is a market failure due to an inherent information asymmetry between supplier and consumer, favoring the supplier. A similar effect is present in the healthcare industry. It harms consumers and makes the market less efficient. It makes sense to regulate against this effect for that reason. Standardization efforts have yielded a great deal of value for society.

[sangnoir]

> Freedom is the key component of capitalism, in the purist sense.

Competitive markets and price information are also key components of capitalism - and the "right to repair" enhances both. Empirically, manufactures don't like competing for repairs, and they also obfuscate the cost of those repairs so customers would never know the total cost of ownership ahead of time.

State intervention does not violate capitalist ideals when it enhances competition, I'll go further and say coercive monopolies are anti-capitalist. Just because I bought a widget from you shouldn't force me to have it solely fixed by you at a price of your choosing.

[DrFlipper]

Yes, coercion of any kind is anti-capitalist, yet you advocate for coercion by the state.

No coercion (voluntary transaction, no state involvement): "I'll sell you this widget, but only if you agree to bring it to me for any repairs." "Ok."

Coercion (state intervention): "Hi, I see you are about to sell your widget to that other guy who would like to buy it, knowing only you can perform any future repairs. If you go ahead, I will use the full force of the justice system to punish you, up to and including death."

I realise this is unrealistically ideal. The language is very important to get right though. You are advocating for coercion for the common good, not the absence of it. The state is impotent without violence, you don't need to shy away from it. State == force.