Jim Elwell wrote in USMA 19417: >At 04:05 PM 11 April 2002 -0400, Joseph B. Reid wrote: >>There has been a prolonged discussion of the pros and cons of compulsion in >>the conversion of a country to the metric system. Two non-compulsive >>measures would go a long way to achieving conversion. >> >>In Australia government policy was to "progressively withdraw the legality >>of non-metric units used in contractual arrangements". > >This has the interesting presumption of "what is not legal is, by >definition, illegal."
I think Jim puts too strong an interpretation on the Australian position. I think it merely means that contracts framed in non-metric units will not be recognized by the courts, but they are allowed. >In general, at least in the USA, we have the opposite presumption: what is >not specifically forbidden is, by definition, allowed. Therefore, >"withdrawing the legality of non-metric units" would, in fact, require that >they be prohibited. This is a compulsive measure. > >>In Canada after about 1975 all formal education was converted to metric >>units only. > >In the USA this has to be considered in two forms: public education and >private education. Should public education be in metric only -- of course >it should, and as a taxpayer I have every right to influence it in that >direction > >Should private education be in metric only? That is the concern of those >who pay for and run the institution, and no one else's. > >Jim Elwell For competative reasons, the curricula of private schools can not diverge too radically from the curriculum of the public schools. Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
