> What's really wrong with this? As a provider of goods or services, I should have the right to say, "I'm only renting you this, not selling it to you. If you want to buy it, go see someone else." ...
It's a good question, but an important consideration is whether your customer has the option of saying no. For example, if you are a small farmer, you can't really negotiate with tractor manufacturers because you lack the market power; you just take what they give you. If they all deny you ownership, you're stuck.
Consider someone who wants a smartphone that doesn't track them, a credit card without waiving legal rights ... I was thinking the other day of people who might have been opposed to lead in gasoline (I assume there must have been some), but they had no choice. Their fate was determined by those who had the market power to control the technology.
Also, most people don't undertand the implications of what they are buying. Nobody has time to study and learn all that.
Just because you want an option doesn't mean you should get it. Sometimes (most of the time) what this weirdo wants is completely unreasonable. For example, how is a cell phone going to contact a tower without giving away its location, if for no other reason than it can only contact towers within a certain limited distance?
Do we really want to force companies to give the option, rather than the market? I'm not 100% Ayn Rand, but my tendency is to let consumers drive what they want to pay for. If there is profit in giving people what they ask for, someone will generally do it.
This isn't to say that market failures don't exist - they do. I'm just skeptical when people with agendas point them out without proof.
> If there is profit in giving people what they ask for, someone will generally do it.
Ideally, yes, but: 1) Much that is valuable to poeple or to society does not maximize profit and is not provided by the marketplace [1] 2) the market isn't really free; for example, companies use their power (politically and in the market) and collude (explicitly and implicitly) to protect their profits and marketshare, and 3) consumers can't be educated about everything they buy; there simply isn't enough time or available resources; therefore vendors, staffed with industry experts, can easily take advantage of them.
> Do we really want to force companies to give the option ...
I don't mean to play down this concern, which is a serious one for me too.
[1] As examples: The technology you are using to read this posting, from protocols to your possibly FOSS browser; almost all knowledge generated at academic institutions, from the theory of relativity to vaccinations to knowledge of society; the security provided by soldiers; our political system, etc.
It's a good question, but an important consideration is whether your customer has the option of saying no. For example, if you are a small farmer, you can't really negotiate with tractor manufacturers because you lack the market power; you just take what they give you. If they all deny you ownership, you're stuck.
Consider someone who wants a smartphone that doesn't track them, a credit card without waiving legal rights ... I was thinking the other day of people who might have been opposed to lead in gasoline (I assume there must have been some), but they had no choice. Their fate was determined by those who had the market power to control the technology.
Also, most people don't undertand the implications of what they are buying. Nobody has time to study and learn all that.