Mimi,

Regarding your missive of March 25th @ 4:29 a.m.

‘’It’s Friday, March 25th 2005, so HAPPY NEW YEAR!’’

Greetings & salutations, Mimi, but I think we have been all over the year 1752 before.

Do you mean Happy old New Year:

Friday, March 25th 2005

Or do you mean Happy New New Year:

Saturday, January 1st 2005

Info @

http://www.weights-and-measures.com

And topic:

Common Time

WWHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTT?????

Don't panic Steve - XCOle is working off the Julian Calendar whereas the rest of us use the Gregorian calendar. (The Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1586 (I think), but the UK only adopted in 1752 - some 160 years later.

Decinmal conage was first introduced in France and the US in the 1790's. It toook Britain 160 years to catch up.

The metric system was introduced in France in the 1790's. We still haev not caught up!!

Or "we're still ahead" - depending on your viewpoint! ;-)

You took the words right out of my mouth, Steve. Whether or not one party is 'ahead' of another depends largely on what their goal is. For example, if your goal is to create a socialist empire where enforced equality and homogeneity are the rule, Europe is ahead of the United States (but we are catching up). If, however, your goal is to participate in the animating contest of liberty, and avoid the tranquility of servitude, the United States is ahead of Europe (although we are, in my opinion, rapidly loosing ground).

Niles - this goes back to our points at how much we want or even need the state interfering into our lives.

Seems that in the UK, Thatcher rolled the state back only to be undone by Major and Blair (from Labour party 1 and Labour party 2).

this is a right royal pain in the ar** for some of the metric-brigade. The state says "use metric" the people, however, speak the language of imperial - in a remarkably strange "anti-stubborn" way (ie there is no effort, either politically or socially). Its quite a unique position.

Unless -of course- you spend your life slapping wet fish into your face.

<<<this goes back to our points at how much we want or even need the state interfering into our lives>>>

and also what we view as interferance..

I don't like the state interfering with my life, but do not feel that my freedom is threatened by the state deciding what units are used on road signs

I agree with the state being involved in our safety.

That ranges from Petty theft, through consistant road signage, to protection of the Realm.


Hey, you've been quiet recently, Mr Andy.....

Have to do some work now and again ;-)

As annoyed as I would be by a switch to metric road signs, I would not feel my freedom to be particularly threatened by them iff it were determined that most people felt comfortable with them (I don't know about the British, but most Americans don't). Steve is correct when he points out that it is the job of the state to make sure we are reasonably safe (this line is crossed when state action becomes as or more harmful than inaction). In my view, the primary mandate of the state (specifically) is to protect us from intentional harms by other people or groups of people (this includes governments, folks). So where does compulsory metrication fit in?

Lest you misunderstand me, I do not think metrication is direct, proximate, or otherwise contributing cause of state tyranny. Rather, it is a symptom of tyranny. And I am not talking about road signs (unless those signs are put up illegally and the people object). What I am talking about is legal sanctions against merchants who sell in ounces, pounds, pints, quarts, gallons, inches, feet, and yards. Would anyone care to suggest what possible legitimate state interest is served when state power (paid for by your money) is brought to bear against people who use customary measures in trade? To put it another way, what is the greater harm that would occur if the state did not do this thing?

Anyone?

Now if the merchant against whom charges were brought were, say, claiming that something weighing 15 ounces weighed 1 pound, I can see a legitimate state interest -- to stop fraud. But would anyone care to tell me, if the pound a merchant uses has a mass of 453.592 37 g exactly, where the fraud in that lies?

* * *

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
--Tacitus (A.D. 55?-130?)

<<<Would anyone care to suggest what possible legitimate state interest is served when state power (paid for by your money) is brought to bear against people who use customary measures in trade? To put it another way, what is the greater harm that would occur if the state did not do this thing?>>>

The greater harm is that it would be difficult for consumers to compare prices if retailers use different measures. Enforcing this kind of standard is a very basic role of the state and has been for as long as anyone can remember. Regrettably if there is a move towards metric, some force must be used to ensure everyone completes the switch, otherwise there is potential for consumers to be ripped off.

Is there a groudswell of opinion on this in the high street?

Are there lots of people complaining that Tesco continue to use lbs and ounces (Erin: "no they don't") ?

Or does Tesco's market share continue to rise because they sell stuff like what the customer wants.

<<<Is there a groudswell of opinion on this in the high street?>>>

How about if the government decided to set the rate of tax by "the groundswell of opinion on the High St?"

Like it or not, there are certain things that cannot be simply voted on by the average man in the street.

<<<Are there lots of people complaining that Tesco continue to use lbs and ounces (Erin: "no they don't") ?>>>

No. And there is no-one complaining that Sainsbury's use metric.

<<<Or does Tesco's market share continue to rise because they sell stuff like what the customer wants.>>>

No. People don't care how stuff is weighed. They care how good it is, and how much it costs.

"How about if the government decided to set the rate of tax by "the groundswell of opinion on the High St?" "

Surely A govt wouldn't put tax sweeteners on the public prior to an election? ;-)

"Like it or not, there are certain things that cannot be simply voted on by the average man in the street."

So why did the govt try to force shops to use metric (via EU directives that wouldn't be followed in any other EU country)?


"No. And there is no-one complaining that Sainsbury's use metric."

I'd check out the business news re: Sainsbury and compare it to Tesco.

"No. People don't care how stuff is weighed. They care how good it is, and how much it costs."

Tesco re-introduced imperial as a DIRECT response to customer requirements, as shown in their press release.

And you know why they did it?

Cos....

'Every little helps'

:-)

Andy said "Enforcing this kind of standard [by which people can easily compare prices] is a very basic role of the state and has been for as long as anyone can remember. Regrettably if there is a move towards metric, some force must be used to ensure everyone completes the switch, otherwise there is potential for consumers to be ripped off." (You're starting to sound like my friend, Thomas)

That is true. However, compulsory metrication is not the least intrusive way to accomplish their goal. Dual labeling is cheaper for industry, easier/cheaper to enforce by the state, accommodates both users of metric and Imperial, and (most importantly) does not result in merchants, who have harmed no one, being harassed by armed bureaucrats. Actually, I guess you don't have a lot of guns over there – is the same true for your bureaucratic enforcers? Or are they allowed to carry? Government must always be required in a way that maximizes liberty and minimizes harm; to do less would be a breach of the public trust.

* That's supposed to be "Government must always be required to *act* in a way that maximizes liberty and minimizes harm..."

<<<Dual labeling is cheaper for industry, easier/cheaper to enforce by the state, accommodates both users of metric and Imperial, and (most importantly) does not result in merchants, who have harmed no one, being harassed by armed bureaucrats.>>>>

Dual labelling is expensive in the long run.

The only merchants that have been harassed have been those who have refused to show metric in addition to imperial, and those who have used illegal weighing equipment.

<<<Actually, I guess you don't have a lot of guns over there – is the same true for your bureaucratic enforcers? Or are they allowed to carry? >>>

LOL. No, fortunately we don't have many guns over here. Even our police officers don't carry them, so certainly trading standards people don't!

"Dual labelling is expensive in the long run."

How many square inches of ink are we talking about exactly?

"and those who have used illegal weighing equipment."

Why did their equipment become illegal? Was it because of customer demand? Where people being harmed? Was the economy being harmed?

"LOL. No, fortunately we don't have many guns over here."

I assume you don't live near London then.

" Even our police officers don't carry them,"

Armed units do - so to do the airport police. Unfortuntely they are more viewable these days

" so certainly trading standards people don't! "

I'm waiting for the new EU directive on that one!

<<
The greater harm is that it would be difficult for consumers to compare prices if retailers use different measures. Enforcing this kind of standard is a very basic role of the state and has been for as long as anyone can remember. Regrettably if there is a move towards metric, some force must be used to ensure everyone completes the switch, otherwise there is potential for consumers to be ripped off.
>>

Does anyone have any evidence of people being ripped off by shops because of measurement unit problems prior to Britain's decision to go metric?

Bud wrote

<<
Does anyone have any evidence of people being ripped off by shops because of measurement unit problems prior to Britain's decision to go metric?
>>

Yes - I had arguments with a car accessory place who were selling engine oil by the US gallon. Also, Britain decided to go metric in 1965, so we are talking about things that happened many years ago. The problem today lies in traders making advantage of the confusion caused by an incomplete conversion to metric.

Martin, I would be interested to know more about this oil incident. Did they simply say "gallon" or did they specify American gallon? Were they independent or part of a chain?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that selling by the US gallon has ALWAYS been illegal in Britain. So did you report this place to the authorities?

Bud

1. It was marked "1 Gallon". At the time suimilar products were always marked "1 Imp Gallon".

2. As far as I could see, they were an independent supplier.

3. The US gallon has been illegal since the 1820's. Prior to that the "Queen Anne Gallon" was legal for certain uses and the US authorities adopted the "Queen Anne Gallon" as the official US gallon.

4. I did biot report them to the authorities. At that time I did not know who the relevant authorities were.