At 07:25 PM 7 October 2002 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >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.
Yes, aside from all the details of this particular case, I think the broader debate is whether pounds-only (or, ifp-only) trade should be legal. Even broader, whether a government has the right to prohibit non-fraudulent, non-coercive behavior of any type. > >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. I agree with the way you phrase this, but my original point was to say it is a bit disingenuous (although technical accurate) to say he was jailed for using an uncertified scale. > >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. Yes. >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. We have to differentiate between consumer and non-consumer areas of commerce. To some degree US courts have used (wisely, in my opinion) a "sophisticated buyer" approach to judging labeling laws: the government in general does NOT have any say in labeling of products sold to sophisticated buyers. Yes, there are lots of exceptions, but that's the general rule. For example, my company sells non-consumer products, and there are no labeling regulations that apply to my products and I can label them any way I please, including using "stones." It is presumed that the "sophisticated" customer for my product can look out for his own interest. However, sales to consumers (i.e., non-sophisticated buyers) must comply with a much broader and more restrictive set of regulations, and, yes, you cannot just label anything any way you want if it is for consumer/retail sale. This is NOT to say that I agree with all US regulations, nor do I think the US has the ideal regulation system. Probably contrary to what most forum members think, I believe the US has far TOO MANY restrictions on labeling, including those restrictions which REQUIRE dual labeling, thus making metric-only labeling illegal. That said, from a practical standpoint, I am not going to get too upset over laws that allow colloquial or metric labeling (or both), but prohibit new, fabricated units a company might invent just to confuse consumers. That does not mean I entirely agree with it, but I will readily admit that any company making up a new unit for weight when selling beef or corn in the grocery store is probably up to no good, so I'll put my libertarian efforts elsewhere. However, regulations prohibiting the use of units that have long been THE standard in the USA are something I cannot support. >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. The government is "owned" by all the citizens. I have as much right to try and influence its purchasing as the anti-metricationists. I see no conflict with my libertarian values in trying to get the government to purchase using metric units only. No one HAS to sell to the government, but lots of people want to, so by merely metricating the US federal government (the single largest purchaser of goods and services in the entire world), we will accelerate metrication of the USA without having to pass regulations on private businesses, or create more bureaucracy to enforce the regulations. That's a "win-win" to a libertarian metricationist. >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. Colloquial, metric, or both. I don't care, as long as they are accurate. Current regulations requiring dual labeling should be dumped. Save the boys with the guns for when someone packages 900 g and calls it 1 kg, or 15 oz and calls it 1 lb. >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 use it to mean any *governmental* instrument that can constrain choice. Private instruments, such as boycotts, are perfectly acceptable to me, and are just part of the free-market spectrum of forces and counterforces. >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." I missed that before. Interesting difference. >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. Well said! >The way that you expressed the last sentence makes me think that you >have confused the European Court with the International Criminal Court. I don't have them confused, but was just being lazy-bordering-on-solipsistic. > >(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. At least at the practical level, we really don't see things very differently. Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
