I would think for most people the goal is some combination of spending less money on gadgets and less environmental impact from gadgets, with repairability just being a means to that end. In which case I would think the commenters proposed suggestion is more direct not less.
> with repairability just being a means to that end.
You know those "prepper" types that use "simple technology" so they can be sure they can survive the nuclear apocalypse? They eschew any and all electronics, then build everything using modern high pressure hydraulic systems with very tight machine tolerances and hoses made from materials that cannot be manufactured without an entire modern industrial supply chain? Their whole rig ends up being not only very inefficient but also does nothing to make the apocalypse more survivable.
In theory building everything with hydraulics is just a means to end of surviving the apocalypse, but deep down, you know they just liked playing with hydraulics (who doesn't--hydraulic machines are cool!) and backed their way into the justification.
The right-to-repairers remind me of those people. They got this idea in their head that repairable electronics equals some combination of eco-cred, lower-cost and fuck-the-man. You can't really reason with them because it's a religious belief. They "just know" that repairable electronics result in cheaper, less e-waste products, and no amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise.
Their goal is not cheaper, more environmentally-friendly electronics. That's merely the justification. The actual goal is cosplaying electronics repair technician.
