On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 11:17:03 Jim Elwell wrote: ... >(a) We're dealing at two levels here. From a fundamental moral level, the >guy was NOT trying to rip anyone off. He wanted to deal in pounds and only >pounds. He was subjected to legal action because he did not want to have >anything to do with metric. He was not prosecuted for fraud because he was >not committing fraud. He was prosecuted for not providing metric units. >That is fundamentally the case, and it is, in my opinion, a travesty. > And, again, I'm sorry you're being misguided, Jim. Wanting to deal with pounds he'd *always* be allowed to. You cannot force the government to approve his pound scale only, and if that scale is not *officially* approved, I'm sorry to say, but you ARE *in principle* committing (or in the process of) fraud!
The scale IS the VERY instrument that will dictate whether or not fraud is being committed. If that tool is NOT certified to the authorities satisfaction and if you insist on using it you ARE in danger of committing fraud if you use it! Sorry, but there can simply not be any escape to this! The authority to certify commerce-related tools rest SOLELY with government authorities. Such authority canNOT be challenged! >(b) That the USA has rules that impinge on the freedom to conduct one's >business in whatever non-fraudulent way one chooses is hardly a >justification for other countries to do so. I don't agree with any law that >makes specific labeling requirements, other than "It had better be >accurate."... That's your point-of-view which I think we here should respect. But it's a darn expensive proposition at that!!! In an era when economies are generally in shambles, when one must be mindful about how to establish reasonable rules and regulations I find it irresistible that one would want to define those in ways that would be productive, effective, cheap, universally applicable and acceptable. Opening the Pandora's box to simply read 'whatever non-fraudulent' way is just asking too much and being beyond reasonable, Jim. I'm sorry... ... >>If you engage in commerce, you must fulfill certain laws and requirements, >>which are enacted to protect the consumer from being defrauded, and the good >>name of the vendor. These laws range from fire safety, through guarantees of >>merchantable quality, to labelling. > >The "protect the consumer" justification for requiring metrication is a >fraud in and of itself. You can "protect the consumer" just as easily by >requiring ONLY colloquial units. > But that's NOT the point, Jim. The protection of consumers IS a very legitimate concern that governments are called upon to fulfill. But the question is not the use of it to 'require metrication' but rather a *CONSCIENCIOUS CHOICE* that govs have made to address this concern in the *best* way they see. If they feel it would be too disadvantageous for them and for the society they represent to address this concern by "opening the gates" to all and any other system of units of measurement why should we impose on them that they did this YOUR way? Taxpayers want them to do their job in this regard, they come with an undisputedly BEST technical route to fulfill this obligation, what else can such taxpayers expect from them? How can you defend a position of reasonableness if you insist on a solution which is clearly technically inferior AND, *worse*, expect that ALL **other** taxpayers should PAY for your views on it??? If I were a taxpayer in this situation I would be *extremely* vocal about this and would yell, "if this guy wants to have this expensive, unsightly solution, let HIM pay for this, because I will NOT shed ONE penny towards that!!!" Please, think about it, Jim. (NOTE: Please forgive me if I'm using strong terms here, this is just part of a rhetoric "speech" a hypothetical taxpayer could be saying about this issue) >In fact, forcing people to switch measurement systems opens up a whole >world of opportunity for fraud due to consumer confusion. Not if it's done *professionally* like many other countries did. We have no evidence that there has ever been any such problems (at least not to the degree you may seem to indicate here). > The best that can >be said for forced metrication is that it minimizes the time such fraud can >be perpetrated. > It's more than that, it also minimizes "traumas", "confusion" and costs. >On the other hand, allowing metrication to proceed as industry and >consumers demand will give people time to adjust to it. Hmm... Let's face it, Jim. Really, how tough can it *really* be for people to 'adjust to it' as you put it?! But *liking* it is a different matter, and unfortunately on this one cannot satisfy Greeks and Trojans... :-S ... >>The law is not onerous. You can sell in pounds/pints/quarts, you can label in >>pounds/pints/quarts, .... > >Whether or not the law is onerous is immaterial to the fundamental question. > We're not talking about religion or moral principles here, Jim! We're dealing with scientific, economic issues, for crying out loud! I still believe (and will continue to believe so) that you're overreacting and letting your libertarian views cloud your judgment somewhat (even though I DO respect your point-of-view and right to your opinion and would not want you to perceive this as denigrating you or what you think, please!!!). ... >Can't agree to that. The Trader has fulfilled the basic requirements for >fair and enforceable measurements by accurately using pounds. But, Jim, if the authorities did NOT certify his scale how can he or you claim that his instrument was 'accurately' delivering what was required of it??? > In fact, >since most people in England are more familiar with pounds than kilograms, >a more accurate headline would be ""Trader punished for failing to use >unfamiliar measurements." > He, he... I guess I and others here will continue to disagree with you on the 'headline'... :-) Cheers, Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
