On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:58:00 Carl Sorenson wrote: ... >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. > This has never been a problem here, Carl. On the other hand *too much* 'freedom' without ANY regard to *collective* benefits to society is not in the best interest of even the individual him/herself! That's the crux of the question, and even a *principle* in many a religion!
>Marcus, I think I can improve upon your example of how laws can limit >freedom to improve it. You said the *essence* of my point, thank you! > Your example was laws against murder. This is a >different kind of thing than laws about metrication or other things. I'm afraid not, law is law is law... Evidently the rationale/reasoning behind some of them may differ, but it's *still* a required thing from all citizens. > 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... > Excellent, no arguing here. >Obviously protective laws (against killing, stealing, vandalism, etc.) are >necessary to maintain order and stability in society, without which no one >does well. > And one could argue that metrication would serve similar objectives! Certainly to 'maintain order and stability', as you put it yourself! No?... >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. > No arguing here. Very good. >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. > Ditto, and so it seems. Keep going. >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. > So far so good. >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). Of course. However, in a "democracy" like the US' it seems we can only get things done if we get the attention of those who *really* hold the power to effect the kind of changes we *know* DO WORK from experience. > We have to >understand that we can't order around the other 99.9% of Americans. We >*can* try to persuade. And where did I ever say otherwise, Carl? > 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. ??? There's actually nothing 'obscure' about my points in those posts you singled out below, and please allow me to show you why. > 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...) >>!$%@##$@#%@# > I was merely sharing a **fact** with our friends here that unfortunately American businesses influences on the marketplace are so powerful that much more sensible rational local practices end up being sacrificed in the process. The above example is just the "tip of the iceberg". So, let me ask you in true honestly, what's 'obscure' about that??? In addition I must convey the extreme displeasure and frustration that *millions* of us, metric consumers, have to face when witnessing things like that! And tell those ears out there to listen that we're not happy with this state of affairs. Again, nothing 'obscure', I'd say, about that either! So, to "complete my thought" I'm glad you singled out the other post below, so that its intention finally gets crystal clear. >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! > In other words, why do we have to swallow irrationality for the convenience of ifp producers??? Why do we have to jeopardize OUR smooth, reasonable, sensible system in favor of American businesses interests? Heck, a resounding NO! And let me give you another example. A few years ago metric tapes in Brazil were largely *pure* ***metric*** tapes! Now? They are *no more/nowhere to be seen*! And who's at fault? Tell me! I contacted one of the several manufacturers in Brazil to inquire on this. The answer? "Oh, our headquarters instructed us to do so to avoid different inventories, production processes and/or having to order from different sources", and/or blah, blah, blah! Again, *judge for yourselves* indeed! If we, *in metric countries*, do NOT speak the loudest about this state of affairs, what do you think will happen in our environment? Please, be realistic, and be real, my friend. >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. Absolutely not, Carl! But if we are not 'vehement' about protecting OUR interests, trust me, noone will, especially NOT *ifp* manufacturers!!! This is not a matter of 'emotionalism' A-T A-L-L, but a matter of protecting *with 'reason'* interests that we understand are vital to OUR societies. > 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. Well... Take it anyway you want, Carl. But the fact remains; sometimes, *especially* after seeing our attempts frustrated at being listened to, we end up with NO recourse, but to be 'vehement' about things. > It usually is wrong. I'm not saying that what you write is >necessarily wrong, but vehemence does hurt credibility. I honestly can't see anything wrong in defending our meager gains when it comes to living in a metric environment. I've experienced too many of the above situations to know that ONLY by the use of *strong* words **at appropriate times, obviously** can we have some chance of succeeding against getting swallowed up by ifp practices ***in our own territory***! So, I'd say, that instead of 'vehemence hurt(ing) credibility' we would actually be doing what we feel is necessary to get the message across, that ifp is NOT welcome here, *p-e-r-i-o-d*! Please notice that the above had NOTHING TO DO with metrication *in the US* but how ifp has *invaded* OUR *metric* territory!!! > 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 think you failed to evaluate *the context* of what I wrote above, Carl. I *rarely* use terms like the above when dealing with situations outside my metric sphere. But I do get very worked up when I witness undue, improper invasion and lack of respect for OUR way of life. I hope you can at least understand that. It's 'impassivity' and lack of action on our part that led our environments to be literally littered by ifp garbage in the areas of construction material, TV sizes, tire pressure and a host of other examples. Had we been more 'vehement' about those and you can rest assured that we would have *certainly* kept our environment freer from ifp trash! > 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. > ? Please notice that what I wrote would have been addressed at OUR authorities *in Brazil* for them to put pressure up in the chain of things, for us to rid ourselves of such embarassing situations. And the strong terms would obviously ONLY follow if other initial tactics failed! Unfortunately there is no way around that, the few examples I shared with my colleagues here are facts beyond any dispute. Obviously, *the way I said* would have to be phrased to the specific situation in question. Where stronger words are warranted, so be it, where a different tone can do the work (and it should always be the first attempt!) so be it, too. I hope you are not concluding that I'm defending ONE approach for ALL situations. >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!!! > And I ONLY use the "strongest" of words when I have *crystal clear demonstration* that your first item below is what's taking place. If they're 'irrational', real "ifp goons" (!) - and some of them ARE, make no mistake about it..., they *must* also know that we, metric consumers, will NOT tolerate their irrationality. What other recourse would we have? If they want to shove garbage down our throats we have every right to tell them, "no, we won't", don't we?! Hit them at their pockets, let them know *exactly* why and that if they plan to insist on this, that's their choice, but that they will *certainly* lose a l-o-t of customers in the process... >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. > Never said anything against #3, Carl. On the other hand, I DO have quite a bit of knowledge concerning *packaging* issues, so many times I speak out of that kind of *knowledge*. I'm sure many here know very well that TABD's rhetoric, for example, is actually full of crap (most of it, anyway) when they lobbied the EU against directive 80/181. They *clearly* exaggerated. And the most reprehensible from their behavior is that *they know they did*!!! They abused their position of power to "convince" EU's authorities of the validity of their position. Just like they use such tactics successfully over and over and over again to brush and trash metrication *altogether*. These are very familiar arguments to any of us here, are they not?... ;-) >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. > Again, you fail to see the context of my messages and to take into account what I repeated here in this forum *many times* that I *always* tailor my responses in accordance with the situation. When 'giving the benefit of the doubt' is appropriate and necessary, you can rest assured I'll use it. You're absolutely right that being 'adversarial' is never a good *first approach*! >Hope this sheds some light on these issues. >... And I hope my message above will serve to ease your concerns somewhat about where I stand, too. Regards, Carl. Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
