The debate "The US Postal Service should be privatized." was started by
August 2, 2018, 3:19 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 31 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
lachlan2 posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
lachlan2, Jasleen, Debater1127, Thinkinghead and 16 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, fyrusz, historybuff, SaffronSHAM3 and 27 visitors disagree.
Nemiroff I have no idea who Bevin is. As nicely as possible you seem very disconected from what ypur opponents believe in. There are very very few Republicans that believe on laissez-faire and would ever mention privitizing the US postal service.
My Representative is Paul Ryan but I dont really have any confidence in politicians.
There is no popular free market movement with conservatives.
In terms of profit vs "public good", it has to be cleared of that as a matter of pure fact, only individuals can think, act, and have subjective preferences, groups cannot. So there is no public interest or public good just the interests of individuals. Profit is not at ends with people's interest it is only created by meeting individuals' interest. Using "public good" as an argument against this is nonsense because there is no such thing as public good.
I've often said that if statists claim something is in the "public good" but it is not good for me personally, then logically I must not be part of the public.
There's a serious logical fallacy in that kind of argument for nationalization. There are many services that would no doubt make my life better if they opened up in my town but they don't because it is not profitable. Shpuld we then nationalize those industries and ban all private enterprise of the same type? Historybuff this is what ypur using as your justification for nationalized mail.
You're also assuming we have a "right to mail". You don't have a right to force a business to open in an area that is not profitable. People in rural areas chpse to live far away from many gppds and services. I really think you're just abandoning logic on this one because the postal service has always been that way.
it would be a real help for democratic populations, even tho the Democrats are fighting for what is best for all, while the Republicans and liberitarians are fighting for what is worse for their constituents. (but better for them and their donors)
he's saying people in rural or low population areas will get screwed. companies only do what is profitable, not what is in the public good. no company is going to want yo deliver a letter to a farm out in the country. there isn't enough money in it.
the end result of privatization would be costs in cities going down and everywhere else would have costs rise or have service cut off entirely.
people in small America who, regardless of income, are few and far between.
private companies would absolutely take mail if it was legal... to big, dense, efficient cities. I'm not arguing that. the private sector will be extremely "efficient" because it has no obligation to the people and will cherry pick only the most profitable routes and locations. will opening a branch in an isolated town of 1000 people be financially worth it? probably not. so those people wont get mail service.
I wouldn't exactly call this aggression, but they are preaching ideals that are self serving to them, and harmful to their constituents. they also give simplified logic to justify them, but I do ask you keep an open mind to reasons and responses.
as to who the leaders are, why your representatives in government. for example Republican governor matt Bevin who argued that the government cannot afford to provide insurance to poor people who claim it is too expensive... but when he refused to ensure his factory (because it was too expensive) and it burned down, he asked the government to cover his lack of insurance.
according to on the issues, matt Bevin is a libertarian leaning conservative.
I dont know or insist on knowing your exact location and representatives but generally, and especially in the highest leadership positions of the right, it is consistent corruption and hypocrisy. far more organized, and more sinister than anything on the left.
(I'm sorry for bringing in this tangent)
Also you mentioned that "my leaders" are the ones preching these horriying ideals (of non aggression and peace) and using me.
Just for kicks who do you think my leaders are?
Well they dont deliver mail because its illegal!
Maybe I misunderstood you, who do you think is getting screwed by abolishing the postal service.
I don't think I mentioned low income people at all...
amazon doesnt make money off its deliveries. it actually sells the products.
and FedEx doesnt deliver 35cent mail, but packages that cost several dollars, maybe even 10s.
No because there is no justificiation to force people not to deliver letters.
I'm not sure what your talking about regarding low income people. There's not very many places amazon and fed ex don't deliver.
I also dont think private mail would look like a new mail service evert five blocks in a city . I think we wpuld see a really main stream service become popular like amazon.
as a big city resident, I would benefit greatly from private competition, but that's just me. most of America, including most of the parts advocating for this change will get screwed... because your leaders and the ones preaching these ideals are using and betraying you.
it is idealistically screwed up for the government to ban private competition, but you are assuming the government is doing that out of greed. if there was a reasonable explanation, would you accept it?
private companies would gladly offer competition all over the big cities with lots of packages and very little distance to distribute, but what will happen to small time, most Republican, america? will you mandate that these companies have to provide full coast to coast coverage? I doubt you would agree, and I doubt the companies would agree either. you will be cutting off millions from mail service, or by leaving only the least profitable and most costly areas to the tax payer. everything will be worse.
yes there is a good argument regarding email, but it's a bit tangental. I do see a future without a post office, but not because of private competition.
All of this aside... say natural rights and the non-aggression principle DIDN'T exist, it should still be privatized for better quality and innovation.
Fed Ex delivers packages only. It is illegal to open a private mail service. That is aggression.
The government dosen't "offer" the US postal service, they ban private mail services and steal our money to finance their shitty nationalized mail service. That is aggression. You don't have to keep pretending that the state isn't force.
what is preventing you from opening a competing mail service? last time I checked FedEx is a thing.
there is no aggression in a government offering a service for their people. that is exactly what they are supposed to do. is it aggression when they build highways? I'm starting to doubt you know what the word aggression means.
Why do you think it is aggression to offer to deliver a letter for someone for a price?
Status quo is not aggression?? No aggression is an act of aggression, no matter how long it has been enacted. If I start a letter delivery service and the govermment uses force and violence to shut me down they are acting aggressivly. If the state sells a service to an individual that volhntarily buys it, that is not aggression.
The idea of keeping something nationalized because it "has always been that way" is regressive and shows an intolerance for change.
also, a quick Google search tells me that it has always been government run and is actually written that way into the Constitution. how aggressive. lol
no. trying to sell off a government service is the act of aggression. status quo is by definition not aggression.
It sucks at what it does and could be better provided by private businesses. Also it is aggressive and violent to grant a monopoly on delivering letters.
Not to mention that nationalization of the service is the act of aggression so the burden of proof is on you for wanting to keep it.
why would you want that?