zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
Every day we stray farther from the premise that we should be allowed to install / modify software on the computers we own.

Will once again re-up the concept of a “right to root access”, to prevent big corps from pulling this bs over and over again: https://medhir.com/blog/right-to-root-access

>>medhir+Lg1
It's amazing how often we hamper the majority of society by protecting the bottom quintile from the consequences of their own mistakes.

>>quotem+Ap1
Everyone makes mistakes

Protecting the bottom quintile from consequences of thier mistakes also protects everyone else if they ever make those mistakes in a momentary lapse

Maybe society shouldn't be structured in such a way that people have to be constantly hyper vigilant to avoid mistakes with high consequences

>>bluefi+Gq1
It's just not possible to prevent mistakes while letting people color outside the lines. Most brilliant ideas look like stupidity at first. I want to live in a world that biases towards discovery over safety.

>>quotem+7r1
There is a line, at least a blurry one, though.

There is not much to discover from e.g. not using seatbelts. There is absolutely a need to protect a population from itself which should cover certain stuff, while not others.

>>gf000+cw1
> There is absolutely a need to protect a population from itself which should cover certain stuff

No, there isn't. I'd much rather live in a world where we were able to make our own decisions about personal safety, regardless of how poor those decisions are.

>>djrj47+6z1
In a perfect world, nobody would be forced to wear a seatbelt and yet everyone would eagerly wear one.

I'd also much rather live in a world where everyone does the right thing, there's no greed, stupidity and short-sightedness. Unfortunately I have to make do with our current one. The fact is that a lot of people are stupid. Even very clever people often act irrationally and against their own interests. In the end, we have to strike a balance between personal freedom and the need to protect people from themselves.

Let's look at the case of mandatory seatbelts, and entertain your proposition that people don't need to be protected from themselves. What will happen?

Well, quite a few things are basically inevitable:

1. The issue will be politicized and there'll be hardliners who refuse to wear seatbelts. There are people who are vehemently against wearing full face helmets while riding motorbikes, even though the injuries from faceplanting into the road at speed are truly ghastly. 2. Once the number of people not wearing seatbelts goes up, a whole slew of interesting negative externalities pop up (and you seem to be gleefully ignoring these): 2.a) Simple fender benders will suddenly result in severe and fatal injuries instead of scuffs and bruises. 2.b) Insurance costs increase to cover the higher likelihood of injuries. 2.c) Fewer people can afford insurance. 2.d) Society has to bear the burden of treating and supporting people who get maimed and need lifelong care.

So what is your proposal to do here? What would you do with a person who didn't wear a seatbelt and got severely brain damaged due to this? Just abandon them to die? It was their choice after all. Who should bear the burden of treating these people? Do we now have tailor made insurance for those who don't wear seatbelts? What if these people will simply opt out of insurance?

At the end of the day, a society has to make a few pragmatic tradeoffs and limit certain freedoms as the cost is just not worth it.

>>short_+Fq2
For the issue of people not wearing seat belts causing insurance premiums to rise for all, a solution is for insurance companies to be allowed to refuse compensation in cases where seat belts weren't properly used.

And yes, if those people have no way to pay for extreme medical treatments to save their life, they shouldn't be provided further assistance. They should bare the consequences of their decisions. Future generations will hopefully make smarter decisions as a result.