Lawrence – You are absolutely correct in stating that an automobile is personal property. However, an automobile is not “property” as defined by the Constitution I’m familiar with. Furthermore, your “right” to own an automobile exists only as far as your budget will allow it. The federal government is not obligated under any circumstances to ensure that you own the car of your dreams just because you don’t have the fiscal resources to acquire it yourself.

Also,

The tail end of your argument (wherein you asked for a specific instance in which government market interference has yielded anything positive) actually only further goes to prove my original point: government interference is not the answer.

For example:
If I choose not to speak my mind, for whatever reason, does this mean that I don’t have the right to? NO. If I choose not to vote, for whatever reason, does this mean that I don’t have the right to? NO. It does not mean that. It just means that I choose not to.

If I don’t own any property, for whatever reason- Do I have the right to? The answer is YES! An automobile is property, is it not? Does anybody deny this? Ok, I didn’t think so. To say that I don’t have the right to own a car is to say I don’t have the right to own anything, which I do. In fact, I have the right to own everything that I can afford.

This whole thing boils down to choice.

I’ll quote Tim “Automotive makers should desire to share this information with their customers.” I agree with Tim but if this is mandated and monitored by the government, it is the consumers who will suffer. It is the consumers who will lose their freedom of choice.

Passing this Act just obscures which is the obvious choice and no matter what the intention, it will only result in limiting the consumer’s right to choose for themselves what is the best buy.

What about the auto makers that already share information with their customers? They deserve to prosper, they offer better service and they raise the bar for everyone else to follow. Companies that don’t comply should either sink or swim survival of the fittest if you will.

If you think I’m wrong, why don’t you just provide one instance where government interference in the market place has had a positive affect. In fact, just give one example of any government, anywhere, doing anything more efficiently than in the private sector.
Well?

This law is aiming to make auto companies more transparent in their methods of incorporating new technology and computer code into their systems so that others may modify and repair these systems. Furthermore to the point of industry competition, “Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to require the disclosure of trade secrets, nor the public disclosure of any information related exclusively to the design and manufacture of motor vehicle parts. No information necessary to repair a vehicle shall be withheld by a manufacturer if such information is provided (directly or indirectly) to franchised dealerships or other repair facilities. [Section 3(b)]” This is similar to what happened in Microsoft’s antitrust case concerning Internet Explorer. Exercising your right modify your owned vehicle by taking a sledge hammer through the window to add another air vent is the same right as if you were to circumvent proprietary code to replace the operating system of your vehicle with something better suited to your tastes. While I also agree with Mr. Friedman, the fact remains that in this day and age, code determines control, and with things like the DMCA in effect, your rights are limited even more. Just ask these guys…

Automotive makers should desire to share this information with their customers. If the buyers know more about what they’re purchasing and ways they can improve on it, that will lead to better development of the products and higher quality goods. And if you think affordability isn’t any concern, then try imagining a status meeting at GM surrounding the sales of Hummer H2s.