USPS

Some time ago I got on the topic of the United States Postal Service with a liberal(American liberal). I argued that we do not need a postal service owned and operated by he government and I felt the arguments in favor of one were weak. The argument for the USPS as a government agency hinged on the idea of universal service. Basically, should a person pay the same rate to send a letter from Wyoming to Alaska as someone pays to send a letter from NYC to Chicago or from Queens to Manhattan. It probably should be more more expensive for the low traffic route from Wyoming to Alaska. I have no idea what the magnitude of this difference would be and the type of service that rural postal users would receive in a completely privatized system though. 'Fairness' is not an issue. Some goods and services simply cost more in the different parts of the country. Real estate, parking, food, or almost anything costs substantially more in New York City than in rural Illinois and there is nothing wrong with that at all. Subsidizing services in rural areas does not make it more fair. More equal yes, but if it cost structure is different prices and services should be allowed to reflect those differences.

So, why should government control the postal system? (it is allowed by the Constitution, but it is not an obligation of the government) FedEx and UPS have shown how private companies can effectively deliver practices and urgent mail. This competition has made the USPS better and more responsive. Why not end the monopoly on 1st class mail and bulk rate mail? This idea sounds radical to many, but there is no reason why it should be radical at all.

Repeat this for the Universal Service Fee on your telephone bill.