From: adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley)
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Organization: Ashley, Howland & Wood
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:04:58 GMT

sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:

>In article <mumble> adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley) writes:
>   galbrth@ac.dal.ca writes:
>   >sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>   >  Note that the design and drawings of the packages represent a negligeable
>   >  cost. You then have to show me that it cost more to print a bilingual box
>   >  than an English only box.

>Note that the above paragraph was written by me, not by Peter.

Sorry Stephane, I should have made the attribution clearer.  The problem
is all of these people who use spaces (indentation) to mark quotations.  (-:

>   No, actually I don't have to show that at all; you've missed the point.
>   The government has no business mandating what languages may or must be
>   printed on packaging.  Let consumers decide.

>But it has business mandating to have metric system on our packagings?
>Where do we draw the line?

Hmmm, the metric bit is a tricky one.  If it can be shown that having
metric on packaging is necessary for some sort of public health/safety
reason, then it should be mandated; otherwise, no, I think the gov't
has no business mandating metric on packagings.

>I'll tell you that the governments have no business setting standard for
>the environment. The market should decide. If people want to buy things
>that are the result of manufacturing that is damagable for the environment
>then be it. That's analog to what your are saying.

No it isn't.  Environmental damage is the classic case of an 'externality'
in business; it is a cost which is not directly represented in the cost of
manufacture of the product or service, but which is borne by society as
a whole; there is therefore no direct incentive for the producer to reduce
the extent of environmental damage caused by its activities, and no direct
incentive for the consumer to choose less damaging products.  Government
is quite right to regulate this, since the market will not do so, or will
do so very ineffectively.  (Notice that recently, consumers have begun
to demand products which are less harmful to the environment, so you
might argue that finally the market is starting to handle this problem,
though I don't quite think so yet.)

Anyway, I argue that the language(s) on packaging do not represent any
sort of externality; no damage is done if producers choose to print
their boxes in one or many languages, except insofar as the ones who
print only in one language will lose customers.  I don't see why the
market can't handle this.

>   Stephane wrote:
>   >  Should the fed translate the laws in Chinese?
>   >  
>   >  So, as I said before. It all comes down to how you define "where numbers
>   >  warrant".

>   Well, I agree it does come down to that.  If there are significant
>   numbers of Chinese speakers, *yes*, laws should be translated.
>   I'll duck the question, for now, of how to define "where numbers
>   warrant" -- it needs statistics that I don't have nearby...

>In other words you will look at the statistics and at what you want, and
>then make a definition that will fit both? I don't see why you need
>statistics for that.

Good point.  However, I guess the definition has to in some sense take
into account the statistics.  We might say "if greater than X% of the
population, nationally, speaks a given language, then laws should be
translated into that language"; however if this results in more languages
than we feel can reasonably be handled (i.e., too expensive) then we might
have to adjust the number X.  Once the number is fixed, the specific
languages which qualify might change as demographics change, but the rule
stays the same.
-- 
Adrian Ashley in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada  ||  adrian@splunge.uucp
"... Motif is very simple.  However, it is hard to see the simplicity because
 Motif is surrounded by a mass of complexity." --Motif book ad in comp.newprod
Newsgroups: can.politics