7 ms·

Universal service obligations have been some of the least effective tools used... After all what constitutes not servicing? How would a state run service be b

• eru 3mo ago
  > How would a state run service be better? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
  • Guvante 2mo ago
    Each post office has individual leadership which serves the purpose of that principle.
    • eru 2mo ago
      That workaround justifies nearly anything.
      • Guvante 2mo ago
        Unless you have an elected position or the position needs to be filled ignoring the wishes of the local group that would select a replacement that is kind of true. Local elections have real value. But splintering a government entity just because you can isn't automatically better. For instance who pays for the last mile? Who pays for the first mile? With a federal program it doesn't matter the answer is the same. With a state program sending mail to a low density state could impact the pricing structure of a high density state. You could end up with fragmentation where cross state is more expensive or worse these friction points are enough where the monopoly breaks down because a few states don't need a monopoly and just let local businesses compete.
        • eru 2mo ago
          > With a state program sending mail to a low density state could impact the pricing structure of a high density state. Yep, aligns incentives nicely! > You could end up with fragmentation where cross state is more expensive or worse these friction points are enough where the monopoly breaks down because a few states don't need a monopoly and just let local businesses compete. Sounds like a good outcome, no? Yes, down with monopolies, especially government enforced ones.
          • Guvante 2mo ago
            You presume that saving money on stamps (which are less than $1 and locked to inflation) is more important than universal service. Why?