At 10:50 PM 10, 7 October 2002 -0700, Ma Be wrote: > >Yeah, kind of like saying, "You can measure any way you want, as long as > >it's metric. Or we'll throw you in jail." > > > >You would agree with that, now wouldn't you John? > > >I can't obviously answer for John, but to me it would be like: "... Or >you'll pay the price of continuing to use archaic, passi technology in >higher taxes (those switching to metric instrumentation would get tax >incentives for doing so, among potential other government actions...), >added certification costs (involved in *YOU* calibrating your instruments >in mandatory metric-only readings, which would be the only officially >certifiable tools allowed to operate in your country, among other >federally-controlled regulations), added exporting and operational costs >(the former due to costs of bringing products in line with foreign >regulations, the latter evidently associated with using decrepit >technlogies and the clear long term opportunity costs of not >metricating...), etc. > >I'd like to believe that any sensible businessman would yield to the >weight of economical and scientific evidence... (true, we'd have the >burden of demonstrating that, but it shouldn't really be that hard, should >it?...) > >;-) (He, he...)
The "heh, heh, heh" is mine, Marcus! You've simply stated a (nearly) libertarian, free market position here. Of COURSE the guy should bear the costs of being out-of-step with the rest of society. And of COURSE any rational businessman would get in step. So why prosecute the guy? Let him bear the burden of using his pound scale, save the tax dollars to go after the murderers and thieves, and this guy will soon pass into obscurity, go out of business, or commit hari-kari out of frustration that no one is paying attention to him! Are you willing to give him this option? Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com p.s. and warmest greetings to you, Marcus!
