The question is not: what are the relative costs and benefits to user-repairable products? Of course there are both benefits and drawbacks.
The question is: who should decide?
That is, should the government enforce a "right to repair" - which means a ban on non-repairable products? Or should companies be able to manufacture both repairable and non-repairable products, and let consumers decide which they want to buy?
A free society is broader than just the free market. No companies manufacture a repairable version of X product? You can use free association to form the "Society for User-maintainable X Devices". You can use free speech to campaign in the press for user-maintainable X devices. You can promote to others the virtues of having a user-maintable X, until there's enough latent demand for startups to spring up to fill it.
The question is not: what are the relative costs and benefits to user-repairable products? Of course there are both benefits and drawbacks.
The question is: who should decide?
That is, should the government enforce a "right to repair" - which means a ban on non-repairable products? Or should companies be able to manufacture both repairable and non-repairable products, and let consumers decide which they want to buy?
A free society is broader than just the free market. No companies manufacture a repairable version of X product? You can use free association to form the "Society for User-maintainable X Devices". You can use free speech to campaign in the press for user-maintainable X devices. You can promote to others the virtues of having a user-maintable X, until there's enough latent demand for startups to spring up to fill it.
None of this requires the government.