On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:54:07 Jim Elwell wrote: >Marcus writes: > >> This is unfortunately where the problem is. You surmise that >> mandatory legislation would *always* be drafted in such a way >> that its consequences will *always* be negative for businesses.... > >You are correct, that was my thinking, albeit by default rather than design. >However, in later emails we have been attempting to come to a common >understanding on what "mandated metric" means. > >Enough progress has been made to relieve my fears a bit, Excellent! That's already progress, Jim. Thanks. :-) but as you will see >elsewhere, not to remove my objections to mandates on private businesses. >... We'll just have to continue refining our approach. I am convinced that you would eventually find some of these ideas very appealing. Who knows you may not even find them to be that bad after all! ;-) One such approach that is part of the "carrot" philosophy is to provide businesses with not only ample time and warning to switch (that should evidently be part of any reasonable plan!), but also share in the costs, either by directly paying for them or via tax relief and/or via other incentives in other areas like exporting and logistics. So, here would be the choice aspect of it (or your freedom, if you will!). You'd have a 'choice' per se, if you embark on metrication you'd have all the help you can get as part of the package, if not, you're on your own, pal! Marcus Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
