/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

bourbonforbreakfast.jpg
[Hide] (70.4KB, 667x1000)

I feel like this is a good book to start out with. Back then, the word 'enshittification' hadn't entered the lexicon, but a lot of what Jeff was talking about is the same. It's one of the books that stuck in my memory and made me think recently, "Oh hey, what everyone is calling enshittification now is really what Jeff was talking about nearly a decade ago." Examples, and causes (solutions where possible)
>Showers & Toilets
Older showers you used to be able to get higher pressures out of. This was regulated to be less in the Energy Policy Act of 1992
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg2776.pdf
There were many updates on the bureaucratic as opposed to legislative side that have made this more restrictive over time.
Low flow toilets, and low flow faucets are a fault of the same regulation.
It was done out of "water conservation". However, given how much more water you have to run to get the same level of cleanliness and how many more times people have to flush, it's very arguable how much this has saved.
<Solutions
Jeff has a solution to hack showerheads in the book. However the solution to toilets is--unfortunately--to just "buy an old one." Personally, I don't really see this as a solution, because logistically that's going to eventually be impossible.
I find that a better solution is to instead use a bidet. One of the main reasons the low flush requires two flushes is because many people use too much toilet paper.

>Washing and Dishwashing Machines
There's a thing called "Integrated Water Factor" defined by https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/05/31/2012-12320/energy-conservation-program-energy-conservation-standards-for-residential-clothes-washers . The regulation was promulgated in 2012, but didn't start getting enforced until 2015. This is the law that forced all the software onto washing machines. Washing machines can sort of 'optimize' their soil sensor/cycle extension/temperature management/etc. in order to hit how IWF is "defined" by the EPA.
What's MORE interesting about this is that this is the period of time in which you could FINALLY look up how corporations commented on these regulatory changes. And this is where you can start to finally have proof to critics that these major corporations are the ones PUSHING for these regulations. For example, here's Samsung not arguing  to do away with the regulation, but to write the numbers in just the right way to keep them in business and their competitors out:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0025
Seriously, I feel like this needs to be pointed out to people. Go through the comments. You will see major corporations agree with the regulation.
https://www.regulations.gov/search/comment?filter=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019
>Dishwashers
Started with the IWF nonsense as well, and a similar story. Here's the docket:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2006-STD-0127
Same deal, major corpos pushed for the regulation.
As you read through comments you can begin to tease out the "Baptists and Bootleggers" phemonenon where Baptists=Environmentalists and Bootleggers=Major Corporations.
<Solutions
Ideally, you'd just repair older washing machines, however, there are still manufacturers making a non-sealed drum design. If you get one of those models, because they're made for long term maintainability, you can also tend to bypass their electronics the easiest. Speed Queen is pretty highly regarded.

>>1599 (OP) 
I really dont know what to say. You obviously understand Regulatory Capture. Large institutions use regulations as a moat to destroy competition. But why make products worse instead of better? When few massive corporations control the entire market because regulations killed their competitors, they have no incentive to make good products. They can make things cheaper, shittier, and more expensive because you have nowhere else to go. Now, I have a theory about the regulatory/bureaucratic aspect as well. I call it the midwit takeover of bureaucracy. So not only will they do everything they can to justify their existence to protect their jobs, but they always want to add and increase controls in order to "do good and make the world better". I always think this is the part that isn't discussed enough. If we are dealing with Regulatory Capture in the marketplace, we are dealing with Midwit Ideological Capture in the bureaucratic world. 

Now, I think the Midwit Ideological Capture is worse because it punishes (in order to protect itself, which means the people protecting their jobs) spontaneous organization. I call it the "lads digging a hole theory". You see a young lad digging a while, and other lads will just join in, and its like they spontaneously understand what is being done, what the method is, and they begin accomplishing things. Good fun. Well, if a group of lads tried to dig a massive hole on a public beach, they'd likely be shut down by a local council for lacking a permit, audited for environmental impact, or criticized on social media. 

It's like the high-agency society that allows spontaneous organization, which can develop high quality alternatives to the giant corporations, is getting crushed under the bureaucracy/governing class, not only to protect the corporations, but I think it is actually to protect themselves. Because the single biggest threat to any government/agency/authority is people acting without their approval. It makes them unnecessary, which means people could lose their jobs. Essentially, you have Midwit pushing through rules and regulations to "make the world a better place" and absolutely destroying anyone acting without his approval, because he needs to protect his job (bureaucratic defense mechanism). 

Solutions? I'll have a think about that while I do some chores. If I think of any, I will post them.

>>1602
>Midwit Ideological Capture
I mean, I think bureaucracy is full of midwits because of selection bias. Instead of "If you can't do, teach," it's become, "If you can't do, bureaucrat." In other words, it's just where you end up if you can't get into a private sector job.
Also, I guess I'm still at the level of simply teaching regulatory capture. Speaking personally, it took me like a decade to understand what the hell it was because I never heard a libertarian say a single goddam CONCRETE, SPECIFIC example (I instead had to piece it together myself when some car nut explained CAFE regulations to me).
I mean, baptists and bootleggers was the only concrete example I heard of, and it isn't actually regulatory capture--you don't see cartels writing that they're all for a regulation to the DEA. You don't _see_ (I'm sure it happens, but there's no hard proof) example of cartel in the DEA solely to police themselves and their competition. You don't see cartels trying to keep themselves legal and "above board" in the same way that corporate regulatory capture works.
I really do think that something simple like this might help just a little bit against everyone and their cousin assuming deregulation = pro corporation that every liberal news media source spouts with no counter opinion.
Also also, I come from the Browneout school of thought. So, in my head, a regulation is worthless if it's thwarted 20 million ways. This is why I like the Mutiny company business model. Because they're going with an open source design, it's "Regulation Resistant". Putting in some new mode of regulation to stop a company like Mutiny competing with you is extremely difficult without also shooting yourself in the crossfire.
>But why make products worse instead of better? When few massive corporations control the entire market because regulations killed their competitors...
I get your point, but the point I'm making here is much more basic:  it's shittier is because you have to engineer it that way to pass the regulations. CAFE regulations force you to engineer a shittier car. GWP refrigerant regulations force you to make aircon shittier. IWF regulations force you to make it shittier. Car safety regulations force you to have tracking devices on your car.

C.f. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_0xBbEFjLk . People just blindly blame "corporate greed" in the abstract, and they simply do not see the regulatory grift going on at all.

>>1602
Your idea is similar to what I've regularly heard called "Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy." Roughly, it states that members of an organization who are dedicated first and foremost to the continued existence of the organization will always eventually come to dominate and control the organization. Midwit Ideological Capture describes what is happening at the societal level, but Pournelle's law in a way describes the internal Darwinism of the bureaucratic organism. See also: anon's autonomous egregores copypasta.

>>1619
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6HEes8daw
MORE of this shit! Everyone is circling the same idea and ignoring lobbying.

>>1599 (OP) 
How can we even reverse enshittification? Are should we even bother?

>>1624
It really is as simple as removing the regulations that made it happen.

>>1625
To spell it out:
Remove the CAFE regulations and let people import Kei trucks
Remove the car "safety" regulations and let Brazilian cars to compete with domestic nonsense.
Remove the IWF regulations and let people import foreign washers.
Remove the '92 statute limitations on showers and toilets, and let people import Canadian toilets.
Remove the AIM act that's going to enshittify A/C in the next few years that everyone's going to blame on capitalism AGAIN.

>>1626
That'd be a good start, but you know that if a product is made too well the man that made it only gets paid once so it's really going to have to be a case of make it urself, true indendence, or get rid of money all together and not be motivated by getting paid, of which is unrealistic, both of those are. If too many people try to be a car builder then it becomes too saturated to be worth doing even once otherwise so you must have people making their own vehicles. That'd be cool actually. I fucking hate how soulless our machines are. Row of houses that are all the same and no one seems to care.

>>1624
Make shittification impossible, unprofitable and shamable.

We can't dislike any product ads and companies will sue you to oblivion if you say the truth, make it so they can be responsible for doing shit and can't talk back to consumers.
If I buy a coffee that is cold and the cup has a hole on the bottom I should have the right to say that to everyone.
Look what happened when a Chinese company delivered something cheaper and better than an iPhone, they voted Huawei out of the country. A free market would let them take over or make Apple step up.

If the free market is even freer a shit company would break, but now they get funds from investors just to keep pushing shit or go ask for help from daddy state.

>>1628
>if a product is made too well the man that made it only gets paid once
That's not what's going on. Companies realize that if their competitor makes a product too well, they'll only get paid once. Thus the lobbying.
One thing I despise about anticapitalist logic is how easily it's defeated by, "Why is it different now?" It's like you guys act like capitalism and greed hasn't been happening for centuries, and only now it is different. It reminds me of all the arguments that the 2008 crisis was caused by greed. Why don't cars last a single year before comically falling into pieces, then? Because of competition.
>>1629
>We can't dislike any product ads and companies will sue you to oblivion if you say the truth
It's interesting because some old car commercials used to do that, and they used to call out each other's shit. Then lawfare got involves, like you said.