>>UK traders have the option of pricing and weighing goods >>in pounds. If they wish to do this, then they must have >>dual pricing and dual scales. > >As I pointed out in an earlier email, this is just a >backhanded way of forcing metrication on those who do >not want it.
I agree. >You can stand there all day and claim he was not punished >for selling in pounds, but, in effect, that is EXACTLY >what he was prosecuted for. This is partly a lexical argument and partly a semantic argument. The lexical argument is: he was not convicted for selling a pound, he was convicted for failing to correctly sell a kilogram. The semantic argument is: he made a choice to be a pounds-only trader. This is not permitted and he was convicted for it. Can we agree on this too? If so, then the debate is about whether pounds-only trade should be legal. >The government refuses to certify his pound-only scale, then >punishes him for using an uncertified scale. This aspect of the story is one that I found least controversial. The certification process exists for coercion. This is not a UK peculiarity. >>Thus it remains perfectly legal to sell goods by the pound >>in the UK and many shops and supermarkets still do. The >>traders were convicted because they refused to support >>metric custom. > >This certainly says it correctly, as in "If you wish to >engage in commerce, you will do so in metric (albeit with >an ifp facade) or we will destroy you." Yes. Presumably this is a similar situation with respect to the FPLA and other Acts. >Let the free market decide and it will happen, >just as it IS happening in the USA. It won't be fast enough >to satisfy most on this list, but it certainly is not "tricky" >and does not require any self-anointed "experts" to tell us >how to do it. I appreciate the libertarian sentiments and am a fan of JS Mill myself. However I do not agree that the US market is free. If I understand it correctly: In the US, I cannot sell gas in litres-only or in UK gallons-only. If I wanted to do this, I would have to provide US gallon indications alongside. Government controls mandate US gallons for gas and a whole set of units for other products. I suspect that the UK 'stone' would not be a legal unit for trade there and I would be obliged to have scales marked in pounds even if I had scales also capable of stones. As you imply below, politicians and civil servants spend huge amounts of taxpayer money in a way that is entirely different to the way that individual consumers do (e.g. moving money towards lobby groups or voter groups). Sometimes that works in favour of metric (e.g. metric in military contracts), sometimes against. There are plenty of regulations in the US that enforce metric, non-metric, or both. However, I am not making any assumptions that you support the current US regulations that mandate metric. I would be interested in knowing your position on the regulation of labels. I presume that you would want to change the FPLA which mandates dual labels and permit retailers to choose to have metric, or non-metric labels. I have also noted from a previous email that you and I may not be using the word 'regulation' in the same way. I am using it here to mean any instrument that could result in constraining choice. >I think the headline is easy, but the pro-force metricationists >won't like it: "Trader Punished for Not Supporting Metric." I would be happy with that. My biggest problem was the lexical error of law, not the semantic error of coercion. Incidentally, as I said in a previous message about US versus European capitalisation, your headline would only look right in the US. In the UK only the first word would have a capital rather than 5 of the 6 words: "Trader punished for not supporting metric." >>Although I have used a different definition of 'did', the issue is >>not yet fully established by the courts. The people concerned are >>going to the European Court in the next 5 years. > >I think this is a fascinating aspect of the whole case: Many of the >same people who support forced metrication think a >"one-world government" approach to globalization is a wonderful >thing. Yet, they scream bloody murder when one precursor to this, >the European Court, is called upon to stop their own form of tyranny. I think you have it correct when you pointed out that not all Americans are rednecks. The same applies to non-Americans. Not all Europeans are socialists and lovers of regulation. Not all supporters of regulations that include metrication have the same ideas about globalisation or about the European Court. The way that you expressed the last sentence makes me think that you have confused the European Court with the International Criminal Court. The European Court is similar to the US Supreme Court and I have never heard anyone suggest that the Supreme Court or the European Court is a precursor to a world government. The International Criminal Court is an entirely unrelated body that is more similar to the Nuremburg courts set up by the US and allies, but not recognised by the Nazis who were tried there. The precursor to this is the Hague Tribunal where Milosovic is being tried in accordance with US demands. But I think I understand what you are trying to say. >(a)continue to educate the public-at-large as to its benefits, >so they ask for metric >(b)continue to apply what pressure we can on companies >to metricate >(c)do our best to get the government to metricate >-- a step that will *tremendously* accelerate metrication in the USA. I agree with all those. I share your view that (c) is key.
