Anonymous
7/2/2025, 8:40:21 PM
No.105779855
>>105779797
>if the firearm you buy says it has certain attributes then it must satisfy that, if it doesn't you have the right to sue them. it is like that and it should be like that, nothing new here.
Why would I prefer a situation where I'd have to hurt myself with a firearm and then sue the company when I could just have the government ensure that all firearms in the market are safe for their users? In what would would the first scenario be preferable?
>its not. its state intervention in the market. the company sells a product, the product has specifications, they must be met. if you don't like the specification don't buy if you buy and the product don't satisfy them, you can go to the state for retribution. it is already like this.
Why would I want that? I want to have protection as a consumer. If I purchase a product, I want the product to be mine, and I want the product to be safe to use. The government has the power to regulate the market to protect consumers, I don't mind if they use that power in the consumers' favour.
>this pretty much proves my point. you want the company to no longer have the freedom to sell anything they want and you are willing to let the state rule over what can be sell and what not.
Yeah, I don't mind if they don't have the right to piss in my mouth and call it rain. Even if they demand I sign an EULA that legally defines it as rain.
>you prob think your freedom as a citizen is separated from companies freedom and therefore companies having less freedom means you have more. well, bad news, it is not like that.
It is like that, actually. And that's a good thing.
>if the firearm you buy says it has certain attributes then it must satisfy that, if it doesn't you have the right to sue them. it is like that and it should be like that, nothing new here.
Why would I prefer a situation where I'd have to hurt myself with a firearm and then sue the company when I could just have the government ensure that all firearms in the market are safe for their users? In what would would the first scenario be preferable?
>its not. its state intervention in the market. the company sells a product, the product has specifications, they must be met. if you don't like the specification don't buy if you buy and the product don't satisfy them, you can go to the state for retribution. it is already like this.
Why would I want that? I want to have protection as a consumer. If I purchase a product, I want the product to be mine, and I want the product to be safe to use. The government has the power to regulate the market to protect consumers, I don't mind if they use that power in the consumers' favour.
>this pretty much proves my point. you want the company to no longer have the freedom to sell anything they want and you are willing to let the state rule over what can be sell and what not.
Yeah, I don't mind if they don't have the right to piss in my mouth and call it rain. Even if they demand I sign an EULA that legally defines it as rain.
>you prob think your freedom as a citizen is separated from companies freedom and therefore companies having less freedom means you have more. well, bad news, it is not like that.
It is like that, actually. And that's a good thing.