2002-04-05
I knew that as soon as I read Terry's posting that Jim was going add his two cents. What Jim has never been able to explain to my satisfaction is where is that fine line between law and lawlessness? Between stability and anarchy? By what criteria do you determine what is a fair law and what is imposition on ones freedom? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2002-04-05 15:32 Subject: [USMA:19263] RE: Opponents of metrication > At 09:07 PM 5 April 2002 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >The word 'freedom' itself is rather too abstract to be anything other > >than a rallying call because it means whatever the speaker and listener > >choose it to mean. The interesting debates are usually about 'my freedom > >to do x' or 'my freedom from having y done to me'. People will often > >claim that particular regulations provide them with freedom to do > >something. > > > >If freedom really was the opposite of regulation, then we would gain > >maximum freedom by abolishing all laws and releasing all detained > >people. > > I fundamentally disagree with your analysis, particularly the way you use > "regulation." However, we have debated the topic at length, on this forum, > on several occasions (I think prior to your joining us), and it is not > practically related to metrication. > > So, for now, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If the philosophical > issue of "freedom vs. regulation" becomes a practical one, then we will > have to cross swords on it. I do not expect that to happen in the USA. > > > Jim Elwell > Electrical Engineer > Industrial manufacturing manager > Salt Lake City, Utah, USA > www.qsicorp.com >
