Jim and Marcus: Allow me to add my thoughts. I think this posting is on topic because it tries to put the issue of mandated metrication in context, as well as discussing persuasive writing (which is an issue since we are trying to persuade 300 million to metricate).
Clearly, freedom and security lead to economic prosperity. I am in a world history class right now, and that is one of the main ideas of the class. Liberalism (equality before the law, democracy, economic freedom) has made America rich. Lack of liberalism has lead to economic inequity and the decline of many societies. So, freedom is essential. Marcus, I think I can improve upon your example of how laws can limit freedom to improve it. Your example was laws against murder. This is a different kind of thing than laws about metrication or other things. It seems to me that laws, which are by nature compulsory and hence limit freedom, serve two basic purposes: 1. They protect. 2. They provide for the common good (they try to benefit society). Money (property) has historically been equated with freedom. Since many will do better economically or some other way, they will gain more than they lose (at least that is the idea). Obviously protective laws (against killing, stealing, vandalism, etc.) are necessary to maintain order and stability in society, without which no one does well. Other laws try to give some kind of benefit to society by limiting the freedoms of individuals. For example, the government of the State of Utah takes some of my money from me (as sales tax) in order to pay for highways. I don't have freedom about how to spend that money. The voters have decided that they will force everyone to provide for the common good. We pay for military protection, national parks, the breaking up of monopolies, the Hubble, etc. To me, it is perfectly appropriate for the government to do these things, even though they do limit my rights and freedom. The problem is that not everyone agrees what is worthwhile. We limit zoning so that our cities will be better to live in. But how far should the government go? Some people want to limit what kind of siding houses in a city can have (it improves property value). Others want the government to provide a welfare "safety net". Mandated metrication is just one area of conflict (at least, in the UK). We will never all agree how far the government should go, and obviously you two (Marcus and Jim) have very different philosophies. Marcus, the way we settle this kind of difference of opinion is by voting. Jim may not like to pay for prescription drugs for seniors, but if the voters choose that, he really doesn't have much choice, except to lobby (the legislators and the public) and try legal maneuvering. Ultimately, the decision is made by the electorate, whether it is constitutional or wise or not. Even the Supreme Court is appointed by elected officials. The only other alternative to electoral control is to let someone be a dictator or monarch. This means that the government can't just make everyone do what a few people in USMA think they should. All we can really do is lobby, try legal maneuvering, and try to make a difference by leading the public by example, teaching, and personal influence (such as procurement choices). We have to understand that we can't order around the other 99.9% of Americans. We *can* try to persuade. Marcus, persuasion takes time, especially when we are so few. We will not be taken seriously if we come across as completely obsessed with what is to most people a rather obscure point. I'm talking about things like the following, from USMA:23296. >And this is where my big beef is. They want to push this stupidity >onto others. I've just found out recently that soya oil is now being >sold in Brazil in hideous 900 mL when in the past we only saw 1 L >containers! And guess what. Why? You got it! The containers are >**the exact same ones** that in North America is housing 946 mL >products!!... (judge for yourselves...) >!$%@##$@#%@# And this, from USMA:23206. >No, I'm not! They DO have a *choice*, just pick a size among the >allowable ones and move on! Again, I vehemently say, there can be >no REASONABLE REASON W-H-A-T-S-O-E-V-E-R for insisting on 85 g cans, >for instance, when you have 75 or 100 as choices especially when >they'd allow you to keep package formats and your manufacturing line >intact! Please understand that I am trying to offer this criticism in a helpful way. In my experience, people who are extremely vehement are more likely to be speaking from emotion than reason. I have noticed a pattern, that when I see lots of exclamation marks and capitals, I should take the text with a grain of salt. It usually is wrong. I'm not saying that what you write is necessarily wrong, but vehemence does hurt credibility. For example, what would you think about someone who wrote a passionate, fervent letter (filled with sweeping generalities in all capital letters) criticizing your use of passive voice vs. active voice? I, at least, would probably wonder why they were so worked up and dismiss the letter. We will not persuade Americans if we act like we are on the fringe. One more point. Marcus, in USMA:23206 you mentioned companies that don't metricate when you tell them to: >They just don't wanna listen!!! Here are some possible reasons for this: 1. They are stubborn and irrational. I think this is not a likely reason for most companies. You don't become rich this way. 2. They are listening but just taking their time at it. Or, they are doing it a different way. 3. They know something you don't. This is quite likely, considering that they have access to all of their records, machines, marketing surveys, industry analysis, transportation networks, retailer contacts, etc. I doubt you have all of these and can understand all of the variables better than they can. Try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I prefer to see our relationship with the rest of society as a friendly one, not an adversarial one. After all, I want to be a part of it. Hope this sheds some light on these issues. Carl
