Sailor is an annoying moron

[BrightNShiny]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

I’m beginning to see sailor’s point. If would be helpful if you at least pointed to which posts you mean.
Do you mean the posts you pointed out in this post? Because those had to do with privatization, which I’m distinguishing with elimination here. If you’re not making that distinction, perhaps you can point that out.

We already have privatized mail delivery in the US, right? You can send your mail via UPS of FedEx if you want to. I assumed people who were talking about privatizing the USPS were proposing eliminating the government-owned postal delivery monopoly. Now, I guess, I’m beginning to see that it might have been a mistaken assumption. Perhaps they meant turning the USPS into a privately owned, well-regulated monopoly, like most utilities. I suppose that’s possible, but that’s not what I usually take it to mean when people advocate “privitization.” That to me means that people are advocating making the USPS a privately owned, perhaps publicly traded, company that is no different from UPS or FedEx. Which means it’s subjected to bankruptcy, buyouts, downsizing, and all the other things that come with privitization.

At that point, you’ve eliminated the USPS as a gov’t owned monopoly, so I don’t see what this distinction is between privitization and elimination. If you are privatizing the USPS, then aren’t you eliminating the government’s monopoly on postal delivery?

I certainly wasn’t using the word “eliminate” to mean going out and smashing all of the USPS trucks and throwing them in a hole somewhere, anymore than I took sailor’s use of the word “rid” to mean that. But whether you sell off the USPS as a whole, or in bits and parts, you clearly won’t have the same thing that you have now.

Again, it would be helpful to know which people. You’re making the argument that someone else doesn’t have a point, but you’re not willing to post the evidence for it?

In my OP in this thread, I did post sailor’s reference to eliminating the postal service. And I posted two references to elimination which neither you nor sailor seem to accept as references in GD. But here are some more:

@Martini_Enfield

If there’s one thing I don’t want the Private Sector doing, it’s delivering the mail (FedEx and UPS don’t count; they’re Parcel Delivery and Couriers.) There are some things that really should be the Government’s responsibility and, IMHO, the Post Office is one of them. (Post #44)

@gonzomax

Privatizing is a joke. There are routes ,especially rural, that would be unprofitable. A private company would find a way to weasel out of them. Then they would cut wages and try to hire illegals .
UPS is a private mail company that was formed to pick off the most profitable deliveries. They are not there to supply a service. Our mail service in America is pretty good. If it was privatized we would regret it. Then of course ,if we privatized ,the companies would be bought up until there was a monopoly.Can you imagine how powerful that company would be? How many times do corporations have to exploit us before we figure out they are not interested in fair wages and treating their workers well? (post #51)

Now that I understand that you are using the word elimination in a different sense than I am, well, I guess that’s beside the point.

Why does internet usage have to get to 99% of the population before you would consider privatizing the US postal service? That doesn’t seem to follow.

Because as noted above, privatizing the mail system wouldn’t seem to have anything to do with the internet usage of the population. . . especially 99% usage, which seems to have no significance whatsoever. It only makes a smidgen of sense if you’re thinking that internet usage would eliminate the need for the postal service. Otherwise, why are the two even related at all?

I didn’t want to hijack the thread completely. I can lay out my reasoning for it. But the main issue I have is that a number of government and private organizations aren’t set up to handle electronic transactions yet, and these transactions have to be conducted physically. Right now, the government guarantees that those transactions can be conducted at a fairly low price through its postal delivery monopoly. It’s possible that a competitive market could provide the same services for physical delivery, but particularly for rural and less-developed areas, competition might not be able to push price down to an affordable level. However, if private companies have to compete with email, then that injects a whole new level or price competition into the picture for rural and less-developed areas. In short, until the government and private sector are better able to handle electornic transactions, I want a guarantee of low-price mail delivery to every place in the US. If I have to subsidize it, so be it.

Your comments were very black/white given the topic of the conversation up until the time. It’s possible (probable) that someone misunderstood them, but it doesn’t make them snotty and rude for having done so given your lack of trying to show them their error.

I don’t want to rehash this, since sailor and I have already exchanged apologies. I don’t know what the point of this comment is.