A model where the manufacturer is responsible is also leaving it up to the market. All you're doing is assigning blame where it belongs (the actual driver being the software and not the end-user).
The manufacturer (or their insurer) will find the sweet (market) spot between safety and costs, where costs include not just manufacturing but the legal repercussions.
Putting the onus on the end-user is messy and wasteful from a market efficiency stand point. It may benefit Elon to make the user at fault, but it's just as "socialist" (or more-so) than putting the onus on the manufacturer.
I think the bigger concern is how to assign fault. If you allow the end-user to override the software then you'll need an objective 3rd party to determine blame (not the manufacturer or the end-user).
The manufacturer (or their insurer) will find the sweet (market) spot between safety and costs, where costs include not just manufacturing but the legal repercussions.
Putting the onus on the end-user is messy and wasteful from a market efficiency stand point. It may benefit Elon to make the user at fault, but it's just as "socialist" (or more-so) than putting the onus on the manufacturer.
I think the bigger concern is how to assign fault. If you allow the end-user to override the software then you'll need an objective 3rd party to determine blame (not the manufacturer or the end-user).