Mandating the metric system
The public teachers of the 1970s began to teach metric, but quickly realized that the US was to be the only country (other than Liberia and Myanmar) which had a government that would not institute a true metric conversion.
The teachers were left without a measurement ecosystem outside of their classroom to which they could teach, and so metric instruction was “all dressed up with nowhere to go.” Metric instruction has become perfunctory.
If we actually had the completely open, voluntary system about which you sing peons of praise, then why is there any restriction on manufacturers to include labeling other than metric at this moment?
And why do you have to work “to make it possible” for metric only labeling?
To compare the measurement situation we face in the US to bilingual education is mendacious. Mendehall had no choice but to announce that metric standards would be used to define our farrago of units.
Your whitewash of the history of how the current non-system of measurements were finally defined in terms of metric standards, hides the fact there was no other technical choice. Without using the metric standards supplied from our signing of the Treaty of the Meter, science and industry in this nation could have ground to a halt. This is because of government inaction on mandating metrication, and the fact that no alternative measurement standards existed for our non-system.
Your response demonstrates an apparent technical ignorance about the metric system.
Why not just create a new measurement unit for each circumstance—like medieval cultures did?
The non-system we use in the US, measures feet in barleycorns (three barleycorns in an inch you know), to determine shoe size, instead of millimeters. My essay might help you with context when considering this question.
I’ve had to obtain mine from Australia to use in my Engineering Practice.
They are the same tools that are used in metric building construction, which the US government has quietly abandoned after the 1990s.