I don't even know why I'm replying to this, but this sort of reasoning makes my blood boil.
A lot of clueless people throw in the "p" word (privatization, or private competition) without really thinking things through.
The USPS is based on the idea of cross-subsidies. The fact that it's easy to deliver mail to, say, 100 addresses in San Francisco (a carrier can just walk a block and do it), subsidies the fact that in, say, Nebraska they would have to drive 100 miles to deliver to the same number of addresses. No private company would do this; they would just deliver in the cities, and tell the rural folks to fuck off. The private operators would just cherry-pick the profitable routers, and dump the rest. Is that what you want to see happen?
I don't want to subsidize mail for people in rural areas. If you do, feel free to donate for that cause.
I can't think of a good reason to subsidize mail. If people live where mail delivery is expensive, they should have to bear the cost. This would cause them to conserve their mail use. Instead of getting mail once a day, perhaps they should receive it once a week, or once a month. Maybe they could pick it up where they buy groceries. Maybe they could just use email or phone. Maybe they would get less junk mail. It's hard to tell how they would adapt if they had to pay market prices. But they would adapt and that's a good thing. It's not a good thing to pretend that delivery costs 40 cents when in reality it costs 40 dollars. And it is unjust to force people who chose to live in areas where it's efficient to deliver mail to subsidize people where it's not efficient.
Also, if subsidized rural mail service is something the taxpayers want to pay for, they could just as well subsidize private carriers.
In short, I don't see any good reason why the USPS should have a monopoly on mail service, any more than it should have a monopoly on email, or fax, or telephone, or TV or any other means of communication.
From Wikipedia[1]: Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".
Without this clause, Congress would not have the authority to establish Post Offices. But note the clause does not say anything about making postal service an exclusive government function. In fact the clause does not even mandate that Congress establish Post Offices, Congress merely has the power to do so. If Congress shuts down the Post Office, it would be perfectly Constitutional. The clause is definitely not a "reason for subsidizing rural mail delivery" anymore than Congress's power to Declare War is a reason to have a war.
I have thought it through, and I still think it's a good idea. People who choose to live in the middle of nowhere should pay the full price of doing so.
I'm sure private companies would have no problem delivering mail to the middle of nowhere, but the people living there will have to pay the actual, higher, cost of delivery. Why is that such a big deal?
The solution is quite simple: Offer the private carriers the rights to carry ordinary mail, on the condition that they do the same kind of cross-subsidization. You don't necessarily need a monopoly, just regulation.
A lot of clueless people throw in the "p" word (privatization, or private competition) without really thinking things through.
The USPS is based on the idea of cross-subsidies. The fact that it's easy to deliver mail to, say, 100 addresses in San Francisco (a carrier can just walk a block and do it), subsidies the fact that in, say, Nebraska they would have to drive 100 miles to deliver to the same number of addresses. No private company would do this; they would just deliver in the cities, and tell the rural folks to fuck off. The private operators would just cherry-pick the profitable routers, and dump the rest. Is that what you want to see happen?