I am perfectly happy to have my arguments picked apart, and my expression of the arguments is frequently in need of improvement. Sometimes I even learn from my interlocutors.

But cryptofascist?! Honestly ?

I mean this is HN. You are supposed to play the ball, not the man, and certainly not call the ball a cryptofascist ball.

Do you do this to people in real life? Have you actually used the word "cryptofasist" to a living breathing police officer? Did it come with the word "Man!" as well.

Really, stop it.

I should probably comment on the rest of your points, but it's hard to get over the first point. :-)

Edit: so, actually trying to respond.

It seems you say that open source software will align incentives, in a similar manner to (openish) standards of wrenches and parts.

I am a big supporter (can't spell proponent) of OSS in place of black box solutions - it opens up an enormous range of positive solutions. However OSS does not produce or guarantee standards. And standards are the issue I see here.

The ability to freely inspect is vital to produce a market of reliable products. It however is not sufficient - open inspection, agreed tests and measurements, and enforcement, are just parts of that.

Fake spare motor parts (OK, spare parts not meeting standards and with no accountability) should be prevented from entering the market - they increase the risk of failure, and even if it is possible to inspect the goods to determine their suitability, why should we impose that cost on every market participant? We have standards and enforcement to avoid such a problem - it could be seen as nanny state keeping people safe, or it could be seen as encouraging markets.

The method of ensuring markets are not polluted to the point of market failure will vary - most people relying on licensing and enforcement. It usually works.

I am arguing that someone who wants to inspect and play and learn about their car software should be allowed to just as they should be allowed to strip and clean an engine.

But even the cursory annual inspections (MA I assume is similar to UK's MOT) are supposed to catch below standard modifications. Even when I was younger, engines were too complex to be learnt, Father to Son, without a Hayes manual.

These days I am sure it is possible for a motivated, intelligent person to become sufficiently skilled that they could modify a modern engine, but I doubt they could do that and learn how to spot fake medication, determine if an aircraft jet engine was properly serviced and if their office block is using the correct steel joists.

The world is way to complex for us to trust God and test the rest. We have to trust that there are sufficient standards and enforcements in place that we can rely on goods and services - otherwise we see market failure.

And finally in my rambling, I do not see it sufficent that if someone has modified their car, their own self preservation instinct will prevent them driving it if it could kill us both. That's never going to fly.

We need standards, inspection, accountability to ensure we defeat market failure.

We want to move beyond markets that deal in goods or services that cannot be trivially inspected by each participant.

Ps
The code of Haranumbai (?) is an interesting example of regulatory failure and where standards are needed. There is a part