At 07:32 PM 30 May 2002 +0200, Louis JOURDAN wrote: >At 9:05 -0600 30 May 2002, Jim Elwell wrote: >>I think you folks make a mistake by equating "liberal = pro-metric" and >>"conservative = anti-metric." While there may be some weak correlation at >>the extreme anti-metric end (meaning that rabid anti-metricationists may >>generally be nationalistic which may mean politically conservative), in >>general I doubt there is much correlation at all. > >Jim, we certainly appreciate that QSI employees can be both pro-metric and >conservative. > >However, looking at the history of metrication in France and other >countries, a slightly significant tendency might be derived, where "left" >or "liberal" governments are more in favor of metrication than "right" or >"conservative" ones. >.... >I agree, these are just examples and many exceptions could be found. But I >was told that "right" governments are more reluctant than "left" ones to >introduce measures which are not really supported by population - which >more often than not is the case of metrication.
We have to be careful here with the labels right, left, liberal, conservative, etc. I use the terms in the USA meaning, but am aware that they are used differently elsewhere. That said, I am not trying to imply that conservatives (i.e., USA Republicans, Canadian Tories, etc.) cannot oppose metrication -- many obviously do. I am merely trying to say that I believe that the correlation between political beliefs and metrication beliefs is not very strong, so using "liberal" or "conservative" to mean "pro-metric" and "anti-metric" is really just stereotyping. However, the last paragraph of Louis' post brings up a very important point: since when is a government supposed to impose things that are not supported by the population, and how is that any different than tyranny? Such statements make me want to equate liberal = tyrannical. Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
