Bill brings up some good points: > > I would have filed a lawsuit based > > on the "takings" clause (5th amendment), because it would have > > destroyed the > > value of several injection molds worth over $200,000.... > > I think your example assumes a worst-case scenario with respect > to directed > metrication. I don't think any of us would want laws so draconian > that they > would require replacement of expensive equipment that was not yet fully > depreciated. You are certainly correct -- I used the worst-case example to try and show how dangerous mandates can be. The fact is that a bunch of legislators, even with advice from a bunch of metricationists, cannot begin to know or understand the direct and indirect impacts (unintended consequences) of such laws on millions of businesses and tens of millions of individuals. Of course, as I have said before, I would fully support mandating that the government do its business in metric (I pay taxes as well as the guy who likes pounds and inches). That, in and of itself, would accelerate metrication in this country dramatically, and may obviate the need for mandates on the private sector for even the most impatient metricationist. > > Finally, ignoring the Constitution, how many of you really > think a person > > should have their life's savings destroyed and/or be thrown in > > jail because they prefer to label a box in pounds? > > This one is trickier. However, one could cite many examples of laws which > subject those who flout them to a small fine, initially. Repeated offenses > usually lead to larger fines. And so on. ... Well, Bill, you didn't answer the question. If you were the county Sheriff in England (whatever their title), would you sleep well the night after you arrested Sunderland in front of his wife and children, and threw him in jail because he sold bananas in pounds? Would you sleep well even if you just played a role in him having to use his life's savings to pay for lawyers because he sold bananas in pounds? Philosophically, is the proper role of government to prohibit peaceful, non-fraudulent activities between consenting parties? Isn't that a bit contrary to the whole concept of freedom? > Remember, though, that the issue is not one of private sale, but > of the sale > of goods in the public marketplace. I see nothing wrong with compelling > large corporations (e.g., Gillette) to package and label in SI units ... I don't see the differentiation between "private" and "public" sale of goods here. All sales of good, except for those involving the government, are pretty much "private." Perhaps you mean "retail" versus "wholesale or OEM"? You do a pretty good job, however, of showing that no matter where you draw the line there will be border cases that are difficult to judge. Your example of Gillette brings up another point: wherever we have laws that *inhibit* in any way use of the metric system, I fully support efforts to abolish them, i.e., laws requiring dual labeling, or prohibiting metric-only labels. Continuing to use Gillette as an example: presume that we manage to get Congress to (a) invalidate any laws that suppress metrication, and (b) buy products that are metric-only. How long before Gillette (who no doubt sells lots of products to the government) says "Hey, why are we making two packages for this product? Just ship the metric one to consumer stores, like the shampoo folks do!" I'd bet it would not take long. Jim Elwell
