So everyone knows that the recent scare tactic used by our Lords is sequestration. One of the effects of this sequestration is the funding of the United States Postal Service and their Saturday delivery. It is said that it would save BILLIONS of dollars if we just didn't run a Saturday delivery. But is this true? Is it really a matter of cutting one day out of their workweek, or is the whole idea of a Government funded Postal Service ready to be outdone by a Free Market model? What are the benefits and drawbacks from a free market approach? Is there another way that we can all enjoy the overwhelming bills and consumer advertisements that fill our mailboxes instead of letters and small parcels?
The United States Constitution draws out specifically Congressional duty to establish post offices and post roads. Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 7 reads: The Congress Shall have Power To …Establish Post Offices and Post Roads. But what it does not lay out in any way is the requirement that those offices deliver mail to individuals. So could we do without delivery service and still maintain a sense of normalcy in sending and receiving our mail? Sure we could. In the past mail was delivered to the Post Office, when the individuals were ready to pick up their mail they would travel to the office and pick it up. So what’s wrong with returning to this practice? I think that the hectic life that many of us lead leave very little time to get to a post office in time to retrieve our mail, but wait, if we could save money by not delivering mail we could staff those offices later or even 24 hours.
Another aspect of this topic came to my attention, I was asked about disabled persons who cannot get to the Post Office and have no one that can get it for them? Well there is an answer for that too, if someone realized this lack of service to a particular group of individuals they could start up a small business that delivered the mail to these people for a fee. Either that or we would see a return of community involvement and acts of kindness to help your fellow community dwellers. If one could not get to the Post Office maybe people would help them by taking them there or even delivering their mail to them. Either way it does not require a service paid for by others.
So what are the advantages of this approach? I believe that if given a real chance a market approach could outperform any government controlled and funded system that could be built. When a service is needed and wanted (Demand) and the product is there to be distributed (supply) a free market could produce very profitable businesses that employ a good amount of citizens. The drawbacks of this type of business are not unlike any other private business in this country. Market availability along with supply and demand are the inherent risks related to this system.
So in relation to our current system of government control and now a threat to the people’s ability to receive their mail a free market approach could alleviate the problems that arise from a government controlled postal system. The flaws of the current system are apparent and so are the differences between them and free market principles. The postman is already an individual and can still perform his job as an individual, the names can stay the same the uniforms can too, but one thing is for sure government cannot adequately run this system to its full potential nor power.
I do agree with your analyses and wish we as a free people could do this. However I believe the fatal flaw in using the public Is that is assumes all people are moral and just. For instance you ask your neighbor to get your mail and the neighbor say there was nothing there this week and they keep your mail or steal your identity and threating you is you speak. In today’s world such action if caught is a federal matter would this be true in the public sector?
ReplyDeleteSay a local business is setup like the UPS store we currently have are setup and run by MOB types. They could intercept mail and clam it was lost or stolen which leaves the customer with no real recourse.
What would the recourse be for the individual, in most cases in the public world you are not returned what you lost but told to be careful next time. these are just a few examples that one can look at as to why the public sector may not work as well as we think. I acknowledge all of this could happen in our current model. However it a bit harder to do when the mail is sent to your door then waiting in a box somewhere else.
Even though the Public sector can be very inventive for good, it is also very inventive for doing bad, so how would you Police this as supply and demand or the people voice alone will not be enough to stop the bad from happening.
Not saying it’s not possible but we must look at the unattended consequences of making a big change to our current system.