My MacBook keyboard is broken and it's insanely expensive to fix

Laws are contextual, they depend on more fundamental principles. A regulation that says "you must use this specific screw size" isn't a law in the same sense as "you shall not murder." When a "law" violates the principle of non-initiation of force, when it tells a manufacturer how to exercise his property rights under threat of imprisonment, it's not really a law but edict.

The issue is who decides and when. A court decides after harm occurs, based on evidence of actual negligence or fraud. A regulatory agency decides before anyone does anything, based on hypothetical risks, and compels compliance under threat of force.

> Which problem is personal and which isn't?

A personal problem is one that doesn't involve the infringement of rights against another person. Most problems are personal. One's homelessness doesn't give one a right to another's property. The moment you say "your need obligates me," you've crossed the line into compulsion.

> in your worldview, there is no morality at all. . . . People like you behave toward the state like moody teenagers toward their parents.

That tells me enough about the depth of your study on this subject. Morality is a science of identifying the principles by which a rational being sustains his life. You're not discussing that science, you're reaching for a metaphor.

> But I read what you write and interpret it.

"Cognitive dissonance" is an accusation about the state of my mind, not an interpretation. You don't get to call me internally contradictory and then say "I'm just interpreting."

Fair to push back ... but your assertion implies one of the greater fallacies of free markets.

Free markets don't magically work like that.

When there are only a handful of participants in any given market, they don't provide all the options as we would like.

It's 100% true that Apple makes some 'good tradeoffs' for build quality - but it's also 100% true that they make tradeoffs for vendor lockin.

Lightning connectors are great examples of that.

The answer may be regulation. It depends, and it has to be careful.

While it's a very 'iffy' situation with respect to keyboards, if we move the conversation to 'batteries' you can see how we might want regs that enable some way for consumers to mechanically replace batteries - and definitely 3rd party repair - and plausibly enable standard 3rd party batteries.

These companies have incredibly monopoly and monopoly power, they reason their margins are so high is partly because of demand, but also because of 'market power' which can significantly distort innovation (think apps on iPhone, totally captured market etc).

Unfortunately it's never so easy as 'always regulate or always not'.

I'm having a hard time seeing why making stuff more difficult to repair just so that people are incentivized to throw it away and buy a new one, should not be illegal. If not for the anti-customer attitude, at least for the amount of waste and environmental destruction it results in.

There's more to the world than banned / not banned.

In this instance, people might want a sensible pragmatic government to levy against companies that have high numbers of items ending up in eWaste processing (or discarded in fly tipping) and offer reductions to companies that invest in eWaste processing and collection.

There are also legitimate total lifetime cost of item models that suggest clean, fast, simple manufacturing that leads to a product hard to deconstruct might actually be "cheaper" in time, resources, and energy across a large consumer population than a functionally equivalent item designed to be "unbuilt" and rebuilt (ie repaired).