> but there is also the entirely valid argument that you shouldn't be able to arbitrarily modify your car (e.g. replace the breaks with some home-grown solution), as it can put yourself and others in danger,
That is a nonsensical argument.
"You shouldn't be able to put anyone else in danger" - agreed.
"You shouldn't be able to modify your car" - wtf does that have to do with danger?
"Modifying brakes (not breaks)" is not the same thing as "Putting people in danger". Sometimes we modify them to have better braking than the standard.
What countries actually do is test the end-result, i.e. Does the car conform to the legally mandated required braking performance?
Rather than campaign to stop people from owning property anymore, maybe just enforce the existing laws (which, as far as I know, are enforced already anyway).
This campaign to divide people into an owning class and a servile class is pretty damn repugnant, and "Because someone can be harmed if we allow people to own things" is just the new "But think of the children" nonsense.
I just tried to come up with a feasible example - maybe gas pipe installation would have been a better one?
But even for cars, it's quite clear that a modify-test cycle there is on the order of months/years (also, has a money burden that probably the owner has to pay). But this would 100% fail to scale to IT - like should I go to the government on each commit? Do I get a signature from them for releases?
> I just tried to come up with a feasible example - maybe gas pipe installation would have been a better one?
The problem is any feasible example you come up with are already regulated, for the same reason you came up with it - there's danger to others!
Where I am, gas pipes, even inside your own house, can only be legally installed and maintained by a certified technician. You also have to get an annual clearance certificate done.
Just about everything dangerous is already regulated; further restrictions "just in case" are not warranted.
That is a nonsensical argument.
"You shouldn't be able to put anyone else in danger" - agreed.
"You shouldn't be able to modify your car" - wtf does that have to do with danger?
"Modifying brakes (not breaks)" is not the same thing as "Putting people in danger". Sometimes we modify them to have better braking than the standard.
What countries actually do is test the end-result, i.e. Does the car conform to the legally mandated required braking performance?
Rather than campaign to stop people from owning property anymore, maybe just enforce the existing laws (which, as far as I know, are enforced already anyway).
This campaign to divide people into an owning class and a servile class is pretty damn repugnant, and "Because someone can be harmed if we allow people to own things" is just the new "But think of the children" nonsense.