I accept that (and your previous points). My thoughts however are about the inhibiting factors outside their control.
You know, as I was driving home last night I realized I probably missed your point, rather than the other way around. If I understand you, you are saying that some type of national program would remove the ambiguity in some of the questions I listed. For example, a program that required metric-only products in 5 years would remove the ambiguity of "will there be a market for my metric products?"
Am I understanding you now?
>Our challenge is to show them "why," then they will automatically do it, and they will deal with the ambiguities and challenges of doing so, and they certainly don't need bureaucrats or politicians helping them.
The politicians and bureaucrats need just as much pursuading. If they were to intervene they'd have to explain and justify it all and I wouldn't have it any other way. However if you're views on this point are typical of the business community in America I can see why they won't touch it.
Most business people are very skeptical of the ability of government to "help" them, for two reasons: (a) our experience is almost universally the opposite (government regulations constrain and restrict, they are one-size-fits-all solutions, the cost lots of money, they usually have no relationship between cost and benefit, etc.), and (b) we know that outsiders (government or otherwise) rarely know enough about our businesses to really help with anything.
Every one of you over maybe 35 years old can do this: consider the years of training and expertise you bring to your own profession, whether it be weather science, running a business, pharmaceuticals, teaching, etc. Then consider whether a group of lay people who have never practiced your profession could meet for a few hours and pass some rules and regulations that will "help" you do your job better. How likely is it that they will be successful in "helping"?
In reality, they will have a few "experts" testify and then make their decisions, and since they don't know anything, those few "experts" will have undue sway over the entire process.
(So I don't get accused of being blind here, let me add that I am perfectly well aware that many businesses are happy to lobby to get government money, but then they scream and yell when the government "interferes." As far as I am concerned, many business people are hypocritis (as are many non-business people), and they are often far better at profiting from it. Kind of analogous to politicians of all stripes: what they are GOOD AT is getting elected, but that does not necessarily make them good at governing.)
The final point is that if we MUST have some type of mandatory metrication, the only intelligent approach is to mandate the result, NOT the methods. In other words, a law that says "all products manufactured in the USA will use metric dimensions and labels by THIS date" is far less damaging than trying to micromanage the conversion process.
Yes I've seen you argue that before and I agree with you, [metricating the Federal goverment] it certainly would help. The problem is how do you bring this about?
To quote Samuel Adams: "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
There is a fantastic article in the current issue of Reason magazine ( http://reason.com/, paper copy available in most bookstores) about how seat belt laws have become pretty much mandatory across the country, but motorcycle helmet laws have not, even though helmet laws would save far more lives (per mile driven). The reasons: there is an intensely dedicated group of motorcyclists who fight helmet laws, whereas there is no such group fighting seat belt laws. The article is not online yet, but should be within a couple of weeks.
So, how do we create an "irate, tireless minority" to get Congress to metricate the Federal Government? First, you have to have a group of activists to whom the issue is important enough to spend their own time and money on the fight.
We don't have that (or, at least, very much of it), so I don't see how it is going to happen.
In other words, because there is not enough pro-metric "fanaticism" in the country, I suspect we will metricate as we have been doing so: slowly.
But I expect to buy food by the kilogram long before I drive in kilometers per hour.That's good to hear and I certainly hope you're right.
And, responding to Bill Potts, what I mean is that I think food will be sold by the kilogram in the store before the signs on our highways read in kph (and, right or wrong, that's what they will say, not km/h).
Jim
