What does privatization of the US Postal Service mean?
phenomenalworld.org
phenomenalworld.org
Now people could make a reasonable argument that they actually do want government to run like a business by getting rid of costly functions or services with low ROI. But at least in the US this almost never seems to be the case and proponents of the argument just think government has a ton of excess waste that can be cut with no impact on services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act
I hope for representation to at some point arrive that will protect the public good that is the USPS in the same manner the cofounder of Costco, Jim Sinegal, protects the $1.50 hotdog:
> “If you raise the [price of the] effing hot dog, I will kill you. Figure it out.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco_hot_dog
(Tangentially, I highly recommend the book “Mailman: My Wild Ride Delivering the Mail in Appalachia and Finally Finding Home” by Stephen Starring Grant, ISBN13 9781668018040)
The crisis is manufactured, the debate of “what to do” or “what would happen if privatization happens?” does not need to be a discussion.
The USPS is a no-brainer public service and the only reason there is any question of its value is due to the severely broken, dysfunctional, corrupt Congress.
If it’s unprofitable, it’s barely unprofitable, especially in the scope of government services.
How many days of the Iran war would fully fund the USPS’ operating budget deficit for a year?
I’m not even sure that corporate lobbyists will be happy with privatization. For example, both FedEx and UPS rely on USPS for last mile delivery of some types of packages. What about all the companies that send me junk mail 6 days a week? Are they going to be happy when one of their most effective forms of marketing doubles in price or shrinks down to 3 day a week service?
This push toward optimization in the US, gradient descent to the LCD - seems harmful to average people.
Besides that junk mail might actually increase if a private company was paid to take it to your house since they would have a profit motive - more junk mail delivered means more profits.
Not in the rural places I've lived, including my current one for 20 years. UPS and FedEx deliver to my porch. USPS has never been here. I drive to my PO box in the nearest town. I think that in this whole county they only deliver to post offices.
Which county is that?
Like...c'mon, this is not hard stuff to understand. There's no motive for the USPS to be neglecting last-mile service in your area if they have the resources to provide it.
And this is absolutely caused by Republican efforts to destroy it. Because that's what they've been doing for decades, specifically to get people to think it's doing a bad job, specifically so that they can privatize it and farm out the contract to their big-business buddies.
its not just paper - all kinds of strange plastics too
when i was in the states i despised that i was required to accept said junk mail under penalty of law and i think thats also a free speech concern. i have the right to not be part of an audience
Huh? Even Germany managed to privatise their snail mail, and approximately no one would want to renationalise it.
What makes USPS a 'no-brainer public service'? What's the big benefit of having government snail mail?
Mail delivery service is not a public good. It's both excludable and rivalrous. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
> What about all the companies that send me junk mail 6 days a week?
Effectively calling USPS the 'federal agency of paper spam delivery' doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement?
In the US, what the parent comment was getting it, is why are we even talking about this in the first place? What problem is privatization trying to solve?
As an American, I have zero complaints about our postal service or how much we pay for it. Apart from the fact that I wish there were more branch offices and a few more workers at most locations. I don’t think privatization will solve either of those.
Why do we need to reform something that already works?
USPS hides 9bn of unfunded pension obligations every year and underserves urban areas to subsidize rural areas.
Mail volume is also generally falling as everything moves to email, so it is getting both less profitable and less critical.
The US is a rich country, we can afford to waste a lot of money and not notice, and of course one person's waste is another person's easier job or subsidized service, but given the ongoing decline in the importance of mail (vs package) delivery, it's not clear that this is a particularly important utility for the government to maintain any more.
It seems like your argument is actually that Congress should rescind that requirement, so that USPS can afford to better service urban customers while continuing to be a critical lifeline to rural areas.
Anyway, Congress did already rescind the requirement that USPS prefund the pensions (a 57bn debt forgiveness), but this is all just hiding the ball, the 9bn in pension liabilities being incurred now are real. Even if you don't prefund them now, an honest accounting says that these are part of your costs today.
A privatized USPS would likely get rid of pensions entirely.
Why are we talking about the post office again??
Just this week I had a package that was supposed to be delivered by Monday that lost tracking and didn't show up until Wednesday.
It might be "basically fine and good enough" but it's definitely not "amazing and completely beyond reproach" at least in my opinion.
This is the sort of problem you solve with more funding not privatization.
Here’s how these privatizations work:
1. Cut funding for public service
2. Service becomes bad
3. Cut more funding because service is bad and unused
4. Service becomes worse
5. Privatize
6. Strip the service for parts, a bunch of people get rich, classic PE stuff but worse
7. Start extracting rents, you have a nice monopoly
8. Public has no or worse service for higher cost
2. My package is delivered late yet again
3. I don't bother calling because the other 8 times I did I wasted an hour, nobody did anything (because nobody can get fired) and I didn't get any money back
4. Look how great we're doing! Complaints are down
5. Give us more funding because we're doing such a good job
This is just as likely of a spiral if we keep it publicly owned. It's also not good. How do you get good outcomes with.no accountability?
and getting them to be properly funded for providing an essential service rather than setting your quality of service by how profitable your area is
public systems have accountability through democratic means. make sure you vote for people that care about the postal service working well, rather than focusing on trans kids, and youll have a working post office
The question is just about the rate it happens and the ease with which you can get restitution.
Remember when Amazon’s delivery dates were commitments instead of estimates? That was interesting for me to think about in this context.
Well… I had a package being delivered, and it had missed its estimated arrival; it ended with me have a long discussion w/ their support that I'm sure was fed to /dev/null. FedEx was the carrier, it turned out, and they claimed they had attempted delivery. Problem was, they required a signature. I live in an apartment, & we have a dedicated package room. But FedEx's stance is that they can't deliver to the secure package room: they require a signature. But at my apartment, they come to the door with the street address on it. Weirdly, that is not the door with the buzzer — that's at a separate, more remote door. The delivery person is not going to take the time to find that door, assuming their corporate overlord's maximum dwell time even permits them to. So they can't buzz me. So they sticker an utterly arbitrary window on the building, and leave. The landlord clears the window. I am never notified.
Somewhere this kicks around in their system until I get a call from an unknown number of "hey your package is undeliverable." But the "guaranteed" delivery date was overshot, of course.
I was, of course, home the entire time. These are what spawn the "missed delivery" memes … https://xkcd.com/921/
This is a systemic problem, not just a "one time" issue: every package shipped via FedEx that requires a signature to me is undeliverable.
The shipper (my bank, in this case) was also less-than-helpful: they apparently have no idea who they ship with, let alone what tracking number they used. Worse, they refused to refund me the extra I had paid to expedite the shipment (which, as you can imagine from the above, did not arrive on time; worse, the expiditing fee was extortionary…)
… and this is modern capitalism these days. A fractal of bad service where the customer ends up having to do 90% of the support work.
FYI, I am quite sure that you can provide special delivery instructions for your address to FedEx. You should try to figure out how to do that.
Dealing with your bank, though… good luck with that when they don’t care.
Yes, it is discrimination. Treating people differently on any basis is discrimination on that basis.
It may or may not be illegal discrimination depending on the specifics and the governing law, and it may or may not be unjust discrimination depending on the specifics and the applicable moral framework, but all discrimination means is differential treatment on some criteria.
Sure it is discrimination on the basis of duration sought, not discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics, and while it is discrimination, its fair to characterize it as bot discrimination between people, since different people making the same choice would be charged the same. Its obviously, in any case, not discrimination anyone would object to, but objectionability is a matter of the basis of discrimination, not the fact of discrimination.
For example, even if you charge people the same _per_ letter, if you just look at eg subsidy per user, it's gonna be widely divergent.
But, perhaps you’re right, maybe the word “discrimination” is the wrong word. Either way, from a national policy standpoint there are very good reasons to subsidize rural areas for basic infrastructure services like mail and internet.
USPS from an operations standpoint is pretty much profitable. Congress basically doesn’t even allow USPS to fix itself when it absolutely can fix itself without major service cuts or privatization. For example, their pension fund can only invest in low-yield securities, while normal companies have more flexibility, so that inflates the cost of their retirement program.
> Either way, from a national policy standpoint there are very good reasons to subsidize rural areas for basic infrastructure services like mail and internet.
Please tell me a few.
Rural areas extract and produce many resources that urban areas depend on. Agriculture, fishing, oil, gas, uranium, wood, maple syrup, etc.
You can’t get workforces to live in those places or businesses to operate there if there’s no roads, internet, mail, schools, hospitals, etc (or if those things are prohibitively expensive).
Don’t forget that subsidy doesn’t always mean the difference between whether it’s expensive or not, it can also mean the difference between having and not having.
Another reason is that too much regional wealth inequality can be bad for national stability. It can lead to things like civil wars and unrest.
> Rural areas extract and produce many resources that urban areas depend on. Agriculture, fishing, oil, gas, uranium, wood, maple syrup, etc.
Sure, and market prices reward them for that in relation to how useful that is. No reason for a subsidy.
> You can’t get workforces to live in those places or businesses to operate there if there’s no roads, internet, mail, schools, hospitals, etc (or if those things are prohibitively expensive).
Why do we want to workforces to live in rural areas? In any case, land prices will drop to establish equilibrium.
That sucks for land owners, but the workforce doesn't care whether they get their benefits in forms of lower rent or explicit subsidies.
> Don’t forget that subsidy doesn’t always mean the difference between whether it’s expensive or not, it can also mean the difference between having and not having.
Singapore has plenty of rural areas lining up to export to her, without paying any subsidies (above market prices) to them.
> Another reason is that too much regional wealth inequality can be bad for national stability. It can lead to things like civil wars and unrest.
That's a good argument for breaking up nations into smaller units, sure.
fishing isndone off the coast, and the fishing boats can land in town or in a city for processing. the ships leave seattle, then go out to alaska to catch fish, thrn come back to seattle with frozen fish
oil, gas, uranium, etc make money hand over fist and can bring people in and out of the mines on a 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off schedule. they dont need a rural village beside
i think the real reason is that local rich people in rural areas are far too powerful, and federal resources ensure that the people that live in rural areas are too wildly oppressed by the local nobility. we hope that one day the nobles will be overthrown and there will be more proper righta and freedoms out in the middle of nowhere
The USPS gets a monopoly because it is required to go everywhere. If a private company doesn't want to go into Michigan it doesn't have to.
Without a monopoly protection USPS goes from being slightly unprofitable to very unprofitable by companies competing only in cheap areas.
Basically USPS needs $0.78 to mail a one ounce letter overall. However it doesn't need that much for you to mail within the same city, it is probably much less than that.
But they do need it if you send a letter across the country.
(And everything you explain could also be accomplished by state-run services, no need to involve the federal level.)
After all what constitutes not servicing?
How would a state run service be better?
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.
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.
Why?
There is daily USPS service to a postbox at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that is only accessible by mule paths. I guarantee this service would either be cancelled or go up in cost to thousands of dollars per letter if USPS was privatized. The sheer size and remoteness of parts of the USA is why it's a public good.
EU countries privatized their postal services decades ago, because governments are not allowed to compete with private entities in the market (unless explicitly allowed by EU-wide laws). And because the idea felt good, the same privatization extended to territories outside the EU, such as Greenland.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Why does a hill billy who insists on living at the bottom of the Grand Canyon deserve a subsidy? That public money would be better spend helping poor people.
I'm going to say this nicely once instead of the reply I really wanted to say because I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of not knowing or looking it up.
Because it provides postal service to the Havasupai people living on their native land at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Would you like to take a guess as to why Supai, Arizona, the capital of the Havasupai Nation, is located at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
There is really almost no comparison to the US in terms of rural areas anywhere in Europe.
> There is really almost no comparison to the US in terms of rural areas anywhere in Europe.
Why do rural people deserve subsidies by virtue of living in the sticks?
For the same reason urban people deserve subsidies, for things like public transportation, by virtue of living in the city. The first sentence of the US Constitution lists "promote the general Welfare" as one of the foundational reasons for the creation of the Constitution. There is no "one size fits all" for a nation this size - the welfare of people in the city and the welfare of people in the sticks requires differing allocations of tax money. Also, mail delivery to the sticks benefits people in cities given that mail in the sticks is often sent to or from cities.
They don't.
> The first sentence of the US Constitution lists "promote the general Welfare" as one of the foundational reasons for the creation of the Constitution.
Just lower general taxation instead. That's even better for promoting general welfare.
> Also, mail delivery to the sticks benefits people in cities given that mail in the sticks is often sent to or from cities.
Well, the senders can pay then.
However Germany still has plenty of government interference in snail mail, like a universal service mandate (or a sector specific minimum wage).
Denmark dropped that requirement, and Danish society hasn't collapsed so far.
It isn't completely non-rivalrous, but the marginal cost of delivering a parcel diminishes as the number of parcels delivered in an area goes up.
It evidently is not. There's multiple providers.
2. Commercial providers rely on USPS to deliver packages in some situations.
About (2): duh, yes, because they ain't stupid. For an analogy: if there's free municipal water, Coca-Cola would make use of that for bottling, too. Or if there were subsidised electricity available etc.
You can find examples both ways - the Swedish privatization has been a disaster.
Once again… the United States is very large.
Surfacing the cost of service provision to end users is generally a good tool to align incentives.
(Use welfare systems to give money to poor people. But don't worry about giving rich people support just because they are old or live in the sticks.)
electorate.
Congress is composed of people who the electorate sends there.
Once there member choices are shaped by the people who contact and persuade them.
If the USPS is poorly funded or managed, it’s because US electorate either wanted that, or was inattentive about the relevant funding and management and cares more about other things.
And if the postal service dies or is captured and privatized, that’s a reflection of the preferences of voters, or a testament to the limits of their attention and intelligence to the point where they voted for people who did things they don’t want.
Most Americans also prefer to blame political folk devils to for the failures instead, and seem to be more happy with that than personal and community discipline that would be necessary to engage responsibly, though, so the system is arguably working to reflect people’s revealed preferences already.
EDIT: I should probably add that it’s not obvious to me that it’s poorly managed. I’ve enjoyed decades of adequate-to-impressive service via USPS over a variety of locations.
I hate this. There is plenty of research showing that the opinion of the broader electorate has almost no influence on most policies. Only lobbyists and donors count.
There are differences in how individual congress members and coalitions handle policy, so who voters choose matters.
Also, some of that research you’re invoking shows that most officeholders try to keep their promises:
https://theconversation.com/do-politicians-break-their-promi...
I agree lobbyists have influence. What is a lobbyist and why aren’t more people lobbying?
Donors also have influence, and yet the electorate has every opportunity to determine who donors must influence every election. Why would they choose someone who is only beholden to donors?
trump voters voted for no war with iran. their guy won, and yet, war with iran
People had 10 years to see what Trump is. I wasn’t excited about Kamala but between the two, it was a very easy decision for anyone that isn’t an imbecile
In a system where money in politics is unlimited (US v. Citizens United), elections consist of a first past the post two-party system, the president is not elected by popular vote, investigative media has been gutted and consolidated into oligarchal ownership, and proportional representation doesn’t exist (see: Washington DC residents have no representation, senators per Californian versus senators per Wyoming resident, gerrymandered districts) I don’t think we can blame the electorate for Congress not doing things that the people want.
But ultimately, money doesn’t remove the fundamental electoral mechanisms (yet) or opportunity for volunteer direct lobbying. It primarily distorts to the degree that it can be used to buy the focus of the electorate and to the degree it can be used to buy other people’s lobbying time.
People could spend their time managing their own political /public policy focus and volunteer lobbying instead of any other leisure activities. I’ve done it and I know others who do. Most Americans don’t, and that’s a revealed preference. Other leisure activities are more important.
Walmart is the largest private employer in America and they are have the most employees in America who receive SNAP benefits due to their lower income status.
I think we can’t create the step-by-step plan and budget for someone who works at Walmart as a cashier for how they’ll engage in the lobbying system. It’s just not possible.
Sure, there’s a lot of free things you can do to be an activist and make your voice heard, but it’s not at the same amplitude.
We can’t blame apathy and leisure when so many people don’t even have the budget for most forms of leisure.
Meetings in DC are probably not the right focus. Every congressional officeholder has offices in the region they represent, most have multiple. Most people don’t use them for the same reason they outsource their understanding of current events to Fox News or Rogan & guests. Some people do contact offices by phone or message, but fewer band together with others who care about a policy topic and leverage collective influence.
Sure it’s hard and time consuming. I’m not speaking from a position of full ability or particular privilege (though I have enough time to post on HN). But it’s also a bit like the old saw about meditation — 10 minutes a day, and if you’re too busy, 20 minutes. The activities themselves don’t always produce immediate leverage but once they lock in the return is powerful.
Just look at how Occupy Wall Street was broken up and twisted into irrelevancy by our media. It was a nonpartisan movement that corporate influence successfully split off into the two warring sides so that critical mass could never be achieved.
Any issue that is perfectly partisan never gets resolved, and the oligarchs know exactly how to turn most issues in that direction.
My prediction is that the data center and AI backlash could work exactly the same way if resistance grows too strong.
Anyway, perhaps I’m too far off-topic now.
The statistics I've encountered suggest that this is smaller than 10%. Between there and the percentage of people who even vote is one margin of responsibility, and there are many people who have time for more but put it somewhere else.
That's a choice, and people are free to make it. It also has consequences, like the elections that select officeholders.
Calling this "victim blaming" seems like rhetorical lane-shifting. We're not discussing crimes where someone suffers a violent attack of some kind they had no agency in, we're discussing a society where those who govern are selected by voters in elections, which at some level means issues are representative of those who vote (and those who don't).
We're all very used to locating agency in large systems somewhere we don't have control over, and at one level that's even pretty understandable as a first approximation -- most people don't have substantial influence at an individual level. And no individual contribution to your retirement account will leave you comfortable, it's the collected effort over time that might. That's true for individual influence too, and magnified by organized cooperation.
You brought up OWS. That's a reasonable example to consider in a lot of ways -- it was collective cooperation, certainly better than apathy, and I respect it for that (and did not take kindly to the ways it was disparaged especially in some partisan media).
It was also a movement that was probably overfocused on the the idea that social leverage is primarily about expressed demand, especially given that the goals of participants were diverse and unfocused. At times it almost seemed like the tactic (occupation) was the goal. It was successful in injecting some longstanding ideas into some parts of public consciousness (there's a 99% that's poorly served by things as they are now and 1% that are dramatically overserved) and may have created some networks that have had a longer influence. But I think it also showed that many participants don't know what effective ongoing influential cooperation looks like.
We want achievements like the civil rights movement but we have Woodstock ideas about what that looks like instead of movement-momentum habits.
I've had this conversation enough to know that I'm also in a sense making a similar mistake, expressing ideas and expecting that alone to change things, which is especially naive given that I know the mindset shift is a bit of a hard sell. At least I know that someone who argues back and forth over a series of comments probably cares more than average, maybe enough to create ongoing habits of influence themselves.
That’s not a reason for non-engagement, but it’s wrong to shift the burden onto the public. Congress is elected and paid to represent the will of their constituents, and part of that job is constant fact-finding to determine what the people want and need.
Blaming constituents is like blaming drivers and non-recyclers for climate change when the military is the largest polluter, by far. Or blaming poor consumer choices for the cost of health care. Perhaps victim blaming isn’t the right word, “burden shifting” seems more apt. The media and politicians constantly try to shift the burden for large, difficult problems onto the public, when there is an obvious coordination problem (“raising awareness” will never solve the issue) and when there are often actual identifiable parties who are to blame for the bulk of the problem.
People's stated preferences are as you say. Most agree we'd like responsive representation that's conscientiously engaged in opinion gauging and fact-finding to determine what the people want and need. We can even select for those preferences, and be consistently unkind to those who are evasive. Yet we're not always consistent about that, and different preferences are often revealed at the ballot box.
This is the inescapable fact of the electoral system: officeholders are selected by voters in elections. There is no other mechanism for selecting them. That's a key difference between your other "is like" examples and elected representation. Pollution and health care are interesting problems to consider in their own right, they even have collective action components, but they also both actually have other identifiable agents and dynamics to whom more of the responsibility can be assigned. When it comes to elected representation, not only are there no agents with more responsibility, there are no other agents with power to select representation. Who else can bear ultimate responsibility for who is selected and how they govern?
You can identify things that make it difficult for people to meet that responsibility productively, and that's reasonable enough, all my comments here are essentially identifying the psychological barriers that assign agency elsewhere, and I'm happy to talk about others.
But there is no other place responsibility lies. The hands on the levers are ours collectively. No one else is coming to save us but us. No system fix will let us run on rote habit and get better results (and also, to fix the system, you have to work to win big under the system as it is).
Most people don’t have the background or the psychological fortitude to see through the charade. They are up against world-class propagandists with unlimited budgets, a lifetime of media programming, and an educational system that encourages passive participation. It’s not a fair fight.
Change is coming, eventually—but it won’t be easy, and it will likely only come when the system finally and completely breaks down in a way that can’t be papered over or denied.
This is not the same situation as someone who is the victim of a violent crime they didn’t volunteer for, choosing language that creates that confusion won’t change the reality that officeholders are chosen by the electorate.
(Let me pause to pre-empt any bothsideism by saying that I think that’s silly and I doubt you’ll change my mind on that, but you can try)
Continuing on - liberals tend to point at systemic issues, but personal responsibility is a thing too. I’m a bit tired of the “education this, social media that” arguments. I grew up in rural Texas, one of the most conservative, fundamentalist, and poorly educated states in the US. By the time I was 14 I rejected the then nascent Fox-style fascism and bigotry I was surrounded by at home and church, because I actually bothered to seek out information on the internet and hear the other side even when it was uncomfortable or felt morally repugnant to me
I don’t say this to congratulate myself (or maybe I do, deep down). I try to stay humble and I feel that I succeed in that to the extent that I have often had self esteem issues. I genuinely have tried to see the other side. Everyone in my family is conservative. It would make my life easier if I didn't have the cognitive dissonance of caring about them while at the same time frankly reckoning with the fact that I consider them weak and stupid people that I would never associate with if we didn't have history. It feels mean and bad to say that out loud, but no matter how much I try to repress it, it's the way I feel. I really don't want to be someone that lets politics come in the way of relationships, but at some point it's a matter of personal values
So after 2024, I have to say, what the hell is wrong with the people in this country? Why is everyone so stupid, selfish and easily misled? There are so many legitimately interesting and inherently difficult problems to be solved with politics, and so far in my 30 years I’ve only seen conservatives blowing the United State’s huge lead by clogging up all of the political bandwidth of the entire country with barefaced bigotry. I’m so tired of it. 2024 was a breaking point for me. I don’t know how I can identify with or be proud of this country.
Happy 250th y’all
The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on conditioning them to be that way
* ID verification
* Vacant home notifications
* Registered mail
I have a hard time seeing a private company scrupulously handling these operations when the incentives to manipulate them could be very large.
If you privatize the post office, then either mail-in voting stops completely, or else a private company can control which mail-in ballots get delivered, and which ones don't.
Strawman. You might have the belief that it’s hard to get right, but that seems based on the American news sources you are consuming from your spit in the world. In reality, there are very little issues with this.
The real strawmen are the reasons given for not requiring ID when casting your ballot. Here in Sweden there is nobody who complains about having to show ID when casting your votes, nor was this ever a problem in the Netherlands.
* Delivery to a post office for an individual without a delivery address
** Low cost media shipping excluding comic books, games, and magazines containing advertisements
Must fight it at any opportunity. I can't imagine the economic value something like USPS brings to the country, likely trillions of trillions over it's lifespan. Something the corpos would never admit.
The ugly part is profit driven mindset, and a “you live in an unprofitable area to mail to, sorry” obvious outcome
Easier profit than a regular bank because the “branches” already have to exist, closes banking gaps for underserved populations, perhaps some other benefits I haven’t even considered.
As far as I can tell your constitution allows the federal level to regulate postal services, but it does not require the establishment of government snail mail.
The wording "shall" is what I meant by weird wording. But no roads? No post offices? Whatever. The constitution is extremely flawed and should be abandoned.
The Constitution is mostly fine and has carried your (?) country for 250 years. It is mostly fine because it is mostly interpreted in an originalist way, i.e. as a document meant to function as the underpinning of a society where all men are equal and endowed with unalienable rights by God. That last bit - God - is as important for those who believe in a god as it is for those who don't because it means those rights are not granted by government and as such can not be taken away.
The wording of a constitution is one thing, the interpretation thereof a wholly different one. Read the constitution of the Soviet Union and you get the impression that there was a state where people really were able to live life to the fullest, helped and protected by the government. Compare it to how life actually looked in that state and you'll get the impression that you surely must have read the wrong document.
It is that hard and even harder. An then you have the problem that politicians and societies have a hard time to decide on topics of much narrower scope and much smaller impact.
That said, I would love to for the US having a solid checks and balances system instead of the current system.
If you want to look at a case study regarding a 'more modern' constitution: the German (de facto) constitution is only around 80 years old.
What's so confusing about that? Presumably the constitution assumes that normal roads are for the more local layers of government to deal with.
I interpret 'shall have power' to mean 'if they want to, they can do it'. Doesn't mean they have. Eg they have the power to levy tariffs on foreign trade, but the constitution is perfectly happy with free trade, too.
Not so fast, comrade. Not so fast. You've got a lot of work ahead of you to fill in the gaps in your logic here, before any of us are going to agree with your conclusion.
So. The new private owner(s) will try to increase their profit. Increasing the efficiency of the processes already in place while providing the same services with the same coverage/quality/etc. at the same prices is indeed one way to increase the profit... but it's one of the hardest ways. Hiking up the prices and discontinuing services with smallest margins is a much simpler, easier, and even more effort-efficient way so this is what's going to happen first.
The same could be said about many organizations within companies if you don't give them a proper budget. Once you start actually caring about being profitable it turns out that you can find how to do things in a way that is less wasteful. Cost acts as an incentive to reduce waste and if you remove it then there is no force to combat waste or unsustainable practices.
>It’s not that private entities won’t deliver postal service; it’s that they quite literally can’t.
If you paid someone $10,000 to deliver a letter to somewhere in the country I'm sure they could find a way to bring it there. It is not impossible.
Are you referring to a different method?
The consequences are far reaching for many existing industries. It may never be unraveled once initiated. It will give rise to more concentrated wealth and power. This is by design.
Want to get rid of corruption? - Vote a representative of the source of that corruption (aka billionaires) into power... sorry, WHAT?
Billionaire is keen to make billionaire-friendly politics. A surprising headline? Apparently.
Do you want quality sustained over decades? Then prioritize quality over cost and keep it public. Do you want inevitable enshitififaction and something that barely works good enough? Privatize it.