I am going to have to digest a lot of this (I cannot see you have landed any significant mind-changers) but it is more and more clear that public policy is going to be informed and sometimes driven by a software literate culture - and the "works on my machine" approach you allude to is correctly more terrifying than "started up ok in my garage" approach to mechanical issues.
But I honestly think that what I understand of the libertarian / anarchy / whatever approach places waaaay to much emphasis on individual ability to determine the reliability / safety of goods available.
I agree with your characterization of not being able to inspect+understand every good, from things being too complex and reliant on the invisible (grade of metal etc). A lot of that kind of testing is destructive testing, which obviously an individual looking to buy one item is not going to do.
But all of this speaks to the needs for standards and guarantees in the commercial marketplace, yet you're applying them to private after-market modification.
We can't prevent someone from ordering paper brake pads and internally-stressed-steel bolts direct from China, putting them on their own car, and then selling it. Or jury rigging repairs in any manner of ways. Which is why there is such a market for "immutable" new manufacturer-authentic cars.
Presently there's no way to know if one's ECU's software was modified by the previous owner, and even if it has some modifications that are necessary because other hardware has been changed - such that replacing the ECU with a "stock" one would actually make other things stop working.
Free software actually solves this aftermarket-modification problem with regards to software, since a buyer would be able to re-flash the car to stock (and even require the seller do so before money/title changed hands).
And this fundamental problem of aftermarket inspection is also why state vehicle inspections don't certify the "entire car", but the bare modicum of external behavior (gross safety, signaling, and emissions). These are the "standards" we're talking about with respect to individual modification, and currently one can modify most anything they like as long as it meets that external behavior. Preventing any aftermarket modification whatsoever is a much stricter regime, one that I don't see the necessity to change to.
> But I honestly think that what I understand of the libertarian / anarchy / whatever approach places waaaay to much emphasis on individual ability to determine the reliability / safety
Anybody driving a car, at any time, can choose to steer into others, drive drunk/high, speed, drive on the wrong side of the road, park on the highway, use dodgy aftermarket parts, ignore mechanical upkeep, tow unsafely, be distracted, or fall asleep.
And despite all of this, people's own sense of self-preservation and personal responsibility does actually work to keep traffic mostly flowing!
One factor you've ignored is that to drive a car, you are required to carry insurance. Even if you modify your car, the insurance is still there to provide at least some relief to any loss of life and property you may cause.
I am going to have to digest a lot of this (I cannot see you have landed any significant mind-changers) but it is more and more clear that public policy is going to be informed and sometimes driven by a software literate culture - and the "works on my machine" approach you allude to is correctly more terrifying than "started up ok in my garage" approach to mechanical issues.
But I honestly think that what I understand of the libertarian / anarchy / whatever approach places waaaay to much emphasis on individual ability to determine the reliability / safety of goods available.