Bill To avoid copying & pasting, I've interspersed my responses to your points in italics below --- On Sun, 15/3/09, Bill Potts <[email protected]> wrote: From: Bill Potts <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:43933] RE: EU Metric Directive To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, 15 March, 2009, 10:47 PM As long as Stephen's viewpoint regarding the display of Imperial measures in the UK is merely permissive and not mandatory, I can provide links to at least one petition where Stephen has demanded mandatory dual imperial/metric markings on goods sold in the UK. and as long as Stephen agrees that a single system of weights and measures (now and, one hopes, permanently SI) is necessary, in law, for the purposes of trade and contracts I will be interested to see how Stephen responds to this! He claims to believe that the two systems can exist together with equal status. In my opinion, one has to be the primary system. The earliest known manifestation of a statement regarding what should be legal for trade is Clause 35 of the Grand Charter of 1215 (Magna Carta), namely, "There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly." The translation I have is slightly different, but that's a good approximation. However, you appear to be unaware of the decree of King Edgar (958-975) which stated "The measure of Winchester shall be the standard" (Winchester being where the Saxon Kings kept their measures) That's centuries before the Magna Carta. You also appear to be unaware that physical measures are likely to outlast written records and that trade weighing is considered to have started around 3000 BC in the Indus civilisation and in Sumeria. It was next adopted by the whole Babylonian civilisation and then by the Egyptians (some time after 2500 BC) (Source: John O'Keefe: The Law of Weights & Measures - a subscription-based UK online reference work or a loose-leaf 2 volume set updated quarterly) Presumably James Madison and the other Founding Fathers had this in mind when, in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, they stated that The Congress shall have "the Power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Congress succeeded in regulating the coinage long ago. Imagine if the current, shaky state of the US economy were compounded by having variations in currency from state to state. That they have failed to do as will with the standard of weights and measures would seem to be related to a point of view that is vastly more libertarian (and less fair) than with what I see Stephen as advocating. I wouldn't dream of commenting upon the US system (except where it impinges on the UK). I would be interested to see whether Stephen's true viewpoints are really as he expresses them here. Perhaps Steve could put some flesh upon the bare bones of his viewpoints & explain exactly what changes he would make to current Weights & Measures administration in the UK? The current FPLA problem in the US relates, not to the fact that it is too permissive, but that is is not permissive enough. Until the two holdout states see the light and cooperate with the other forty-eight, manufacturers of products sold nationally are not permitted to omit the US customary measures from their labels. When they are permitted to omit them, I am assuming that they will not, in fact, be prohibited from including them. My hope, for both esthetic and, I hope, logical reasons, is that they all choose not to include them. However, as long as SI units are required, and as long as trade laws require pricing to be based on the SI measures, and as long as, in contract law, only transactions and valuations expressed in SI are enforceable, I think that supports the spirit of the Magna Carta and of the US Constitution (and of metric legislation passed in the 19th and 20th Centuries). My view is that, once the display of non-SI units (in addition to SI units) is merely permitted and not mandated, it will die out and will fairly soon be regarded as quaint. To reiterate, I hope that is very soon. As long as anti-metric extremists exist, they will attempt to ensure that their favoured system is still marked. In the UK, groups like BWMA & the Metric Martyrs ask their supporters to write to manufacturers to demand dual labelling. (Stephen has written many letters.) I find it very telling that these groups publicly (my emphasis) support pubs that wish to sell draught (draft) beer in metric measure (citing the libertarian argument), but have not made that point in the recent UK government consultation regarding prescribed quantities. You would ask why they haven't made that point when offered the chance to make it Can I suggest that this is because to a UK anti-metric campaigner, the "libertarian pro-choice" position only applies as long as you agree with the anti-metric campaigner's choice. For example, if a pro-metric poster pointed out that Cravendale CHOOSE to pack their milk in 1 litre packs, the anti-metrication activist will point out that it infringes his choice to be able to buy the milk in 1.136 (2 pint) packages. Do you really think that libertarianism should be FORCING producers to pack their goods in specified amounts? Finally, should you wish to discuss any specific points in Stephen's responseto the EU, please post.......
