Oh, you're one of those Richard Stallman types who think that intellectual property is coercion? Haha! You could do what I did and build your own PC using parts off of newegg.com after you do some research on what parts to buy. You don't have the "liberty" to make a computer manufacturer provide you a blank computer if they find it in their interest to have a deal with Microsoft.
I used to be a linux/open source fanboy too. (Ubuntu.) I used to also think proprietary is the devil. Then I learned/realized that a: In many cases, proprietary software is more polished than the open source variant. And b: I didn't give a damn about Richard Stallman's concept of "free". I only cared about "free as in free beer".
Though there are some examples of open source software that can compete with or dominate proprietary. Such as the Apache server and Mozilla Firefox. But now I'm willing to pay for an operating system that works correctly and that I can play games on without bugs and graphical problems.
The hardware that you're not allowed to reverse-engineer? You probably agreed to a contract (ToS or EULA) when you bought it. So you'd be committing fraud against the company you bought the hardware from if they're only willing to sell it to you on the condition that you don't reverse-engineer it, you agree to that, and then you reverse-engineer it anyway.
What you've said implies an idea I've seen around. The idea that intellectual property coerces you by controlling what you're allowed to do with your physical property. That ignores the fact that whoever invented something or created a song or wrote a book or whatever, is responsible for the creation of a new idea that would not have existed if they had not done the mental labor to create it. The value in the physical objects was created, not by the labor it took to create it, but by the mental labor that the originator of the idea spent on it. They earned the right to exploit that idea for their personal gain. And you'd be getting something for nothing from them if you exploited their idea by creating physical instances of it without their permission.
As to the rest of it: Most cars are safe to drive. Most car companies make announcements if terrible defects are found in one of their models, and will probably offer to fix it if it's dangerous. But if you want to be informed specifically, demand, as a condition of buying the car, that you be alerted to things like that. If they aren't willing to comply, then both them and you are just shit out of luck. But you could still sue them for fraud if they withheld information from you that would've influenced your decision to buy the car. You have the liberty to buy organic if you think non-organic is unsafe.
Wait wait wait. Hold on. The "liberties" you're demanding sound like "liberties to be given stuff", especially at the end there. Which doesn't make sense. There are implied expectations you can demand of things, such as food being non-poisonous and cars being safe and airlines having competent pilots. You could sue if you get into an arrangement where they lead you into thinking you're getting something and giving you something else. Selling a faulty car or poisonous food without saying anything would be examples of breaching that implied expectation. But you sound like you want everyone to give you what you want and if they don't comply and offer you exactly what you want, or if you aren't allowed to go against their wishes to get what you want from them, then you don't have "liberty". That sounds like the "liberty" anarchists and Occupy Wall Streeters talk about when they think they have the "liberty" to do anything they want on anyone's property, and that if the police have to forcefully remove them, then it's "violence" against them.
Also, humans are not causing the climate changes/devastating hurricanes/etc. That bs has been disproven already.
Oh, you're one of those Richard Stallman types who think that intellectual property is coercion? Haha! You could do what I did and build your own PC using parts off of newegg.com after you do some research on what parts to buy. You don't have the "liberty" to make a computer manufacturer provide you a blank computer if they find it in their interest to have a deal with Microsoft.
I used to be a linux/open source fanboy too. (Ubuntu.) I used to also think proprietary is the devil. Then I learned/realized that a: In many cases, proprietary software is more polished than the open source variant. And b: I didn't give a damn about Richard Stallman's concept of "free". I only cared about "free as in free beer".
Though there are some examples of open source software that can compete with or dominate proprietary. Such as the Apache server and Mozilla Firefox. But now I'm willing to pay for an operating system that works correctly and that I can play games on without bugs and graphical problems.
The hardware that you're not allowed to reverse-engineer? You probably agreed to a contract (ToS or EULA) when you bought it. So you'd be committing fraud against the company you bought the hardware from if they're only willing to sell it to you on the condition that you don't reverse-engineer it, you agree to that, and then you reverse-engineer it anyway.
What you've said implies an idea I've seen around. The idea that intellectual property coerces you by controlling what you're allowed to do with your physical property. That ignores the fact that whoever invented something or created a song or wrote a book or whatever, is responsible for the creation of a new idea that would not have existed if they had not done the mental labor to create it. The value in the physical objects was created, not by the labor it took to create it, but by the mental labor that the originator of the idea spent on it. They earned the right to exploit that idea for their personal gain. And you'd be getting something for nothing from them if you exploited their idea by creating physical instances of it without their permission.
As to the rest of it: Most cars are safe to drive. Most car companies make announcements if terrible defects are found in one of their models, and will probably offer to fix it if it's dangerous. But if you want to be informed specifically, demand, as a condition of buying the car, that you be alerted to things like that. If they aren't willing to comply, then both them and you are just shit out of luck. But you could still sue them for fraud if they withheld information from you that would've influenced your decision to buy the car. You have the liberty to buy organic if you think non-organic is unsafe.
Wait wait wait. Hold on. The "liberties" you're demanding sound like "liberties to be given stuff", especially at the end there. Which doesn't make sense. There are implied expectations you can demand of things, such as food being non-poisonous and cars being safe and airlines having competent pilots. You could sue if you get into an arrangement where they lead you into thinking you're getting something and giving you something else. Selling a faulty car or poisonous food without saying anything would be examples of breaching that implied expectation. But you sound like you want everyone to give you what you want and if they don't comply and offer you exactly what you want, or if you aren't allowed to go against their wishes to get what you want from them, then you don't have "liberty". That sounds like the "liberty" anarchists and Occupy Wall Streeters talk about when they think they have the "liberty" to do anything they want on anyone's property, and that if the police have to forcefully remove them, then it's "violence" against them.
Also, humans are not causing the climate changes/devastating hurricanes/etc. That bs has been disproven already.