Wait what? The smartphone market has plenty of competition. If being user-repairable was an important feature to consumers there would be lots of phones that delivered it.

> I'd also argue culture has made owning a mobile device a function of being socially acceptable.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

> the U.S. is a liberal democracy, a constitutional democracy, ... the power of the people to define an economic system and the means to regulate it ... You can dislike it all you want,

Now you're really straw manning me as some sort of libertarian utopian who's against democracy (both false), Here is what I said:

"I think companies should have the right to do X."

That is quite clearly not a statement about legal or constitutional realities, it was a response to grandparents own made up right (to repair). The constitution allows for all sorts of things that are bad ideas. At one time it allowed the owning of humans as chattel slaves. More recently and relevantly it can compel companies like Apple to compromise the security of their devices in various ways. The Nebraska bill touches on this in a smaller but not insignificant way as part of the world class chain of security in current iphones is the touch sensor and third party replacement of the sensor breaks this chain. So yes the government has the right to force Apple to provide parts/specs/whatever. Is that a good idea? I don't think that's clear at all.

You've also invoked market failure in this case with zero evidence that it exists in the smartphone market. I'd bet that repair revenue is a rounding error to Apple and they likely take a loss overall. And if market failure does exist (and it might well for tractors which are 90% of the article's focus) there are also other avenues for correcting that failure.