Marcus writes (edited for length): >? First of all, it seems like you have misunderstood my intervention >here. I was merely agreeing with John and others about people's >perceptions of America.
We're just talking at cross-purposes here. I agree with yours, John's and others perceptions about what foreigners think of Americans. I am just claiming those perceptions are stereotypical, are largely wrong, and are immaterial in any case. >Nonetheless, I hope you will agree with us that attitude towards this >issue should have some relevance, shouldn't it? In other words, if our >perception of America is true to some extent, that would certainly help >explain quite a bit about why you folks are dragging your feet so much on >this issue. I totally disagree with this. The vast majority of Americans do not know nor care what people in other countries think. The fact that others think Americans are arrogant explains nothing about why we have not metricated. The real problem with your understanding is shown in saying "... why you folks are dragging your feet..." I am trying very hard to explain that America is not some monolithic entity where the government can say "all right everyone, let's metricate!" It is 280 million citizens who, to varying degrees, believe themselves to be individuals who can behave as they want, and, to varying degrees, could not care less what a foreigner wants him or her to do. And even where the government could force metrication (e.g., DOTs), the government is controlled by the collective will of some portion of those 280 million people. If enough of them hate metric enough and are vocal enough, then it won't happen. In other words, America is NOT dragging its feet, because there is no "America" in this sense. Lots of individual Americans are not metricating, for many reasons. And if you foreigners want to help us pro-metric Americans, you first have to understand you are not dealing with any simple, central entity. You are dealing with millions of individuals. >Please, give it some thought, Jim, to this. In addition, "collective" >benefits should be something that societies comprised of individuals >should be mindful of. Most individuals are mindful of their role in society. And many Americans are not convinced that metric is any better. THAT is what we have to fight. >A too individualistic society like the one you seem to be describing (in >regards to the American society) is a one that unfortunately cannot >prosper completely. I disagree. America went from being a bunch of poor, backward colonies to being the most powerful nation on the planet, due largely to the fact that our constitution acknowledges and protects individual rights. Not group rights, not community rights, but individual rights. So if America has not "prospered completely," what country has? >Therefore, I also strongly believe that we should also focus on this >aspect of metrication, in addition to its being undeniably far superior to >anything else. Undeniable to you. Again, Marcus, you are not recognizing that many people do not agree with you. They could be wrong, but they still don't agree. >?? I honestly don't recall having "berated you (Americans)" in any way, >Jim. The maximum I said was that unfortunately most of you were on the >the bad side of this issue, of those defending an idiotic system, that was all! I did not mean to imply your individually, Marcus. You have at all times been a gentleman in our debates. >While I agree with you that we should indeed "remember" such >characteristic of yours, we should also fight to make you see that there >is more to life than "personal freedoms", like the good of the collective >(a Christian principle!). And THAT is something I humbly believe is worth >fighting for and to change, wouldn't you agree? ;-) I truly believe that >we can have both in this case, achieve individual freedom while >benefitting the collective in a nice balancing way. No, actually, I do not agree. I believe very deeply that any system that does not make individual freedom and individual rights its foundation is a system destined for despotism. The problem with the "good of the collective" is this: who gets to define what is "good" for the collective? And if you define it and I disagree, then either you have the power to FORCE me to comply (in which case we have despotism) or you do not (in which case the "good of the collective" is defined by each for himself). > However, I beg to differ, i.e. I'm not convinced that your society is > THAT "individualistic" like you portray it I do not deny that my views are more individualistic than many Americans. However, I don't think you and some of the others really understand how individualistic Americans can be. Jim Elwell
