Public Choice in Action

This U.S. Postal Service is opposing a "do not mail" list for junk mail because . . . well, I'll just let them explain it:

Postal Service spokesman Al DeSarro said half of the mail his agency handles is direct marketing mail, and reducing its volume could cost thousands of Postal Service jobs.

This is terrific logic. Americans should be bothered with useless, unsolicited junk mail so that the USPS can continue to pay otherwise unneeded postal workers to deliver it. Makes sense to me.

I thus propose a federal "Agency for Digging Holes in Americans' Front Yards." Then, because of the holes-in-people's-front-yards problem that will inevitably result, I propose a second "Agency for Filling In Yard Holes."

These two agencies will create thousands of new federal jobs. And as we all know, new jobs are good for the economy. 

Comments

tepid | January 6, 2008, 10:56am | #

Mainstream libertarian approved.

Graphite | January 6, 2008, 10:56am | #

Hey, it got us out of the Great Depression.

Isaac Bartram | January 6, 2008, 10:58am | #

Hey, you'll be sorry you wrote this when it shows up in Edwards' and Obama's platforms.

Episiarch | January 6, 2008, 11:01am | #

What about an Agency For Putting Things on Top of Other Things? That could provide a lot of jobs.

Graphite | January 6, 2008, 11:04am | #

Agency for Building Superfluous Bridges Over Creeks!

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 11:05am | #

Can I at least get off the IRS's mailing list? After all, the "s" stands for "service" and they can serve me better by not sending me junk mail.

P Brooks | January 6, 2008, 11:07am | #

These two agencies will create thousands of new federal jobs.

Or we could consolidate them into a single entity, and call it something romantic and progressive, like the "Works Progress Administration."

Or did we do that already?

Balloon Maker | January 6, 2008, 11:11am | #

Radley, you know Mexicans would just end up taking those hole digging and filling jobs from good hardworking Americans. That's bad for the economy.

Syd | January 6, 2008, 11:27am | #

I don't have much of a problem with junk mail. The advertisers are paying for it after all, and I own a waste basket. It's nice to know what the specials are at local stores. Junk e-mail, on the other hand, is a total nuisance with no redeeming qualities.

martin | January 6, 2008, 11:31am | #

Wait a minute Radley, I think your anti-gubmint streak just got away from you.
If companies want to pay the USPS to deliver their ads what's wrong with that? Free market in action, no? Presumably those "unneeded" workers are being paid by those same companies' mail payments.
You don't like getting it, so instead of taking a sec to toss it, you call for a no-send list, government enforced, of course. What gives?
I don't like TV ads, I'm paying for cable and satellite already. I demand a no-receive list! I don'twant to wear out my new 50" LCD with unsolicited ads!

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 11:36am | #

"You don't like getting it, so instead of taking a sec to toss it, you call for a no-send list, government enforced, of course. What gives?"

Um, just in case you are unaware of it the USPS is a government agency. Not only that it is a government agency that has a monopoly on the delivery of 1st class mail. I do not have the option of switching from the USPS to another company for this service. If I did you might have a point.

Lamar | January 6, 2008, 11:44am | #

Maybe we could make a trade. In return for nixing the no send list idea, postal workers will pretend like they give a crap about customer service and for just one second act as if they were in a private sector job. That's not one second everyday, mind you. All I ask is for one second. Since there can be no such compromise, why don't we just fire the postal employees and contract out to a company that gives a damn when the mail overflows?

ed | January 6, 2008, 11:44am | #

What takes only a minute more than throwing it away is repackaging it in the handy prepaid response envelope and mailing it back to the sender. They pay for it twice that way, the postal drones stay busy and you feel good about yourself. Everybody wins!

Syd | January 6, 2008, 11:45am | #

I was forgetting the credit card spam mail. I object to any mail I have to put through the paper shredder.

Indy | January 6, 2008, 11:46am | #

Radley, you know Mexicans would just end up taking those hole digging and filling jobs from good hardworking Americans. That's bad for the economy.


No, that is the free market.IllegalMexicans can save the taxpayer money by doing these make-work jobs cheaper and more efficiently than the lazy Americans.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 11:48am | #

Syd, this link might help you with that.

https://www.optoutprescreen.com/?rf=t

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 11:49am | #

Yes, the key to reducing the bureaucracy of the USPS will be add a whole new layer of personnel responsible to maintain the "Do Not Mail" list!

Radley, if you don't like the USPS, perhaps you should fight for a constitutional amendment to revoke Clause 7 in Article 1, Section 8.

Meanwhile, some of us believe in priorities.

Also, if we're going to have USPS, then there's no reason to restrict the people's right to use it. I might consider a letter from you junk mail, but you should have the right to send it if you are willing to pay for it.

For me, it's too easy to deal with "junk" mail: just write RTS on everything and stick it back in the mailbox.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 11:53am | #

This is off topic, but Wolf Blitzer just interviewed Ron Paul on CNN. Blitzer was respectful and WISHED RON PAUL GOOD LUCK!

This is BIG! The tide is turning! Fifth place in the NH primary is secured! SEND MORE MONEY!

Jerry | January 6, 2008, 11:54am | #

This is an infringement on commerce and an infringement on free speech.

You're a government organization, for Pete's sake!

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 11:54am | #

postal workers will pretend like they give a crap about customer service and for just one second act as if they were in a private sector job.

given that the USPS relies entirely on its revenue to conver operating expenses, the only issue is the first-class monopoly, which is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The USPS is a hell of a lot more efficient, friendly and customer-oriented than you think.

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 11:56am | #

Jerry - he's arguing on behalf of his customers.

If the government's going to provide a service, and people are willing to pay for it, I don't see how it is any way fair or "libertarian" to restrict access because the use of that access may annoy some people.

martin | January 6, 2008, 11:58am | #

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter:

What keeps you from taking down your mail box and switching to Fed-Ex or similar to get your mail? Inconvenient? Yes. But why call for coercive government action just to keep you from being inconvenienced?

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 12:02pm | #

"If the government's going to provide a service, and people are willing to pay for it, I don't see how it is any way fair or "libertarian" to restrict access because the use of that access may annoy some people."

Ayn_Randian, in this case it would be one set of customers restricting access to another set of customers. Shouldn't I have the right to tell someone not to put litter my mailbox with thier property?

Pain | January 6, 2008, 12:04pm | #

What keeps you from taking down your mail box and switching to Fed-Ex or similar to get your mail? Inconvenient? Yes. But why call for coercive government action just to keep you from being inconvenienced?

Because it's against the law for anyone other than the US Post Office to deliver mail.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 12:11pm | #

"What keeps you from taking down your mail box and switching to Fed-Ex or similar to get your mail?"

The law stops me. The USPS has a monopoly on the delivery of first class mail. It is against federal law for anyone but a federal postal employee to put mail in a mail receptical (except on Sundays and national holidays).

"But why call for coercive government action just to keep you from being inconvenienced?"

Because there is a coercive government law that prevents me from solving this problem using free market solutions.

martin | January 6, 2008, 12:14pm | #

Because it's against the law for anyone other than the US Post Office to deliver mail.

Huh? I've got plenty of small envelopes delivered by Fed-Ex. They just can't throw it in the mail box.

Radley Balko | January 6, 2008, 12:14pm | #

I'm ambivalent about the do-not-mail list. If it were applied to private carriers, I'd be against it. But I'm not so sure it's such a bad idea with a government-enforced monopoly.

The point of the post, though, was that a government agency is opposing the idea because if we stop allowing companies to use the USPS to send people crap they don't want, thousands of federal employees will be without a job.

jimmy smith | January 6, 2008, 12:15pm | #

By adding a $1.00 additional user fee on all first class items we could give the USPS employees a pay raise.In addition, we could call it a sin tax, 'cause without it too many people are using first class mail, causing the employees to have to know how to read, etc. With the junk mail it goes to all of us, it's fair (and equal).

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 12:15pm | #

The USPS is a hell of a lot more efficient, friendly and customer-oriented than you think.

That's true, but it's like having a heart surgeon who only makes mistakes ten percent of the time.

But I don't care much about junk mail. My recycle bin isn't far from the mail box.

OTOH, I think Radley's point is well taken. USPS opposes an opt out provision in the law on a make-work basis. I see their point, after all, people like me never use the USPS for anything anymore. In fact, the writing is on the wall, without junk mail there will be no more post office.

The other thing to remember is that junk mail is subsidized by first class. The advertisers are not paying market price, which is why they use the USPS instead of buying TV ads or hiring individuals to walk around your neighborhood and hang stuff on the door knob or gate.

When you consider that the USPS is a creation of government and not a private provider it doesn't seem unreasonable to force efficiency or customer service by law.

Nobody griped about legislated opt-out service for phone lines and phone service is at least nominally market oriented.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 12:17pm | #

I see Radley beat me to it. And speaking of efficiency, he only used about half as many words to do so. :-)

Reinmoose | January 6, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Oh, I'm so torn!

Ayn_Randian -
does it really work to write RTS on everything?

I am generally very happy with the service provided by the USPS, but since I've been switching most of my commerce to electronic form, a larger and larger percentage of my mail is junk mail.
Do I, as a private citizen, have the right to mail obnoxious, unsolicited material to every mailbox in the country with deceptive print on the envelope?
I view this as similar to the complaints I hear about people playing loud music from their cars as they drive by our homes. Should I be able to stand at the end of someone's driveway (on the public side-walk) and shout through an amplified source that I have important information about their potential loan consolidation?

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 12:20pm | #

Shouldn't I have the right to tell someone not to put litter my mailbox with thier property?

No, not unless you think it would be OK if court summonses and the like should be restricted too.

Fluffy | January 6, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Junk mail is not subsidized by first class. It's by far the other way around.

The price of the class of service isn't the relevant point. It's the profitability of it. Bulk mail is more profitable for the post office than first class mail.

Ayn_Randian, in this case it would be one set of customers restricting access to another set of customers. Shouldn't I have the right to tell someone not to put litter my mailbox with thier property?

Nope. The DNC list for phones is crap also. As are spam laws. If you don't want to receive communications, don't participate in communications systems.

[Please note that I oppose each of the above as laws, and not necessarily as tiers of service. If someone wanted to offer phone service that screened your calls for you, I'd be happy with that. But stopping me from calling you, as a matter of law? Blow me.]

Reinmoose | January 6, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Radley -
Bravo on the hole digging analogy. I would amend that agency to be a hole digging agency (which is at least sometimes a service), but where 80% of the holes dug are unsolicited and in peoples front lawns.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 12:24pm | #

Martin, Fed Ex does deliver small packages and if it makes you happy mailing things that way go for it. On the receiving end however banks, Departments of Motor Vehicles, doctor's offices and lots of other necessities will simply not mail small parcels that way. I should not be forced to live as a hermit simply to avoid junk mail, not when it is a government agency with oodles and oodles of regulations in the first place.

martin | January 6, 2008, 12:31pm | #

I just don't think the "I have no free-market choice" holds water. There clearly are alternatives. Taking down the mail box is the simplest, most efficient one. Switch to another service. They are out there.
Strikes me that some here argue from a it's government - I'm against it position. Works many times, but not this time.

Reinmoose:
Do I, as a private citizen, have the right to mail obnoxious, unsolicited material to every mailbox in the country with deceptive print on the envelope?

Certainly you have that right. As long as you pay the USPS fees. If you find that you get nothing you want, do awya with it - take down the mail box.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 12:32pm | #

I wrote:
"Shouldn't I have the right to tell someone not to put litter my mailbox with their property?"

Ayn_Randian wrote:
"No, not unless you think it would be OK if court summonses and the like should be restricted too."

In a Rothbardian anarchist utopia sure. I live in the real world and recognize that "life isn't fair". I wish I could get off the IRS mailing list as well. But we have to go to war with the post office we have, not with the post office we with we had. Just because I cannot exercise a right consistently does not mean I should be denied that right completely.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 12:32pm | #

Fluff, junk may or may not be more profitable to the USPS but I can assure you each piece of junk mail sent to my house costs the sender much, much less than when somebody sends me a check for services rendered via first class mail. Since it isn't possible to send me a check using junk mail rates, I assert that first class mail rates do, indeed, subsidize junk mail.

Other than that, I agree with you.

BTW, you can opt out of junk mail by writing:

Direct Marketing Association, Mail Preference Service, 6 East 43rd Street, New York NY 10017

Chances are it won't work very well, but if you pursue it and work hard at it, you may get off the list.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 12:35pm | #

PIR, it is illegal to use FedEx to deliver stuff considered to be first class mail to anyone unless it absolutely has to be there the next day. USPS has inspectors in many big companies (think IRS auditors) to determine whether these regulations are being ignored. They often levy fines.

The Owner's Manual | January 6, 2008, 12:37pm | #

Hey, there's no need for worrying about the economy. Another govt official had this to say --

"The beauty of Social Security to me is that all the money (that goes to retirees) goes right back into the economy," says Stephanie Sue Stein, director of the Milwaukee County Department on Aging. "It's money that is being spent, which is why we're never going to have another Depression."

Plant Immigration rights Suporter | January 6, 2008, 12:40pm | #

Fluffy, in the case of the Do not call list there probably could be technological way of doing the same job. But I consider junk mail as a (extraordinarily minor) form of trespass. Another person's property has been placed on my property without my permission.

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 12:45pm | #

Thank you, Fluffy...you and I are seeing eye-to-eye here.

Of course, in the linked piece, the devil is the details:

"The bill wouldn't include mail from political organizations, nonprofit businesses, charities and small businesses with 25 employees or less."

Oh, of course it wouldn't. Just Big Corp. only, you know...I don't smell any class warfare in here, no siree.

Yes, you can mark mail RTS (Return to Sender) and off it goes at no cost to you. Additionally, if said mailer gets enough RTS mail from you, they might just knock off the mailings.

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 12:46pm | #

USPS has inspectors in many big companies (think IRS auditors) to determine whether these regulations are being ignored. They often levy fines.

All true except for the "often"...the Equifax case is the only time that springs to mind, and USPIS (Inspectors) actions are obscure enough already.

John C. Randolph | January 6, 2008, 12:48pm | #

"Also, if we're going to have USPS, then there's no reason to restrict the people's right to use it."

Anyone is perfectly within their rights to refuse a delivery. If they tell the USPS that they don't want to get junk mail, the junk mailers have no right to override that decision.

-jcr

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Wine Commonsewer, I had not idea the Postal Service had so many spies! I assume, since the federal government is so concerned with whether or not Martin is sending his Aunt a Christmas card using Fed Ex that no other crimes exist in the United States of America.

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 12:53pm | #

Anyone is perfectly within their rights to refuse a delivery. If they tell the USPS that they don't want to get junk mail, the junk mailers have no right to override that decision.

Then you can tell them that. I don't see where a new law is necessary, especially since it conveniently exempts politicos from that very law.

See also: mail from the courts and the IRS point made above.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 1:01pm | #

"Then you can tell them that. I don't see where a new law is necessary, especially since it conveniently exempts politicos from that very law.

See also: mail from the courts and the IRS point made above."

I agree that the law should not exempt politicritters. However, if you had two diseases and a physician gave you a drug the cures one disease but not both it would be better than nothing.

PiperTom | January 6, 2008, 1:02pm | #

Just digging holes? Robert Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon had a much grander version. As I recall (it's been some years) Heinlein had Cadillacs being made in Detroit, shipped around the country, then crushed and recycled.

PiperTom | January 6, 2008, 1:05pm | #

If you had two diseases and a physician gave you a drug that cures one disease but the other disease was due to the treatment given you by said physician, then you should rebel.

Stormy Dragon | January 6, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Just out of curiousity, are you legally required to empty your mailbox? What happens if you just leave all the junkmail in there?

alisa | January 6, 2008, 1:17pm | #

"If you don't want to receive communications, don't participate in communications systems."
--Fluffy

Anyone is perfectly within their rights to refuse a delivery.
--jcr.

It seems that people are talking at cross-purposes here.

In one sense, jcr is right. If I don't want to see an ad, I can change the channel. If I don't want to receive spam, I can get a spam filter. If I don't want to read a letter, I can throw it away. I can screen unwanted calls. There's nothing wrong with using a device or service to evade communication. If the post office offered (for a fee) to recycle the junk mail addressed to people who don't want to receive any, I'd be fine with that.

But that's not what the USPS would be doing, and here's where Fluffy is right. A company wants to advertise to me; I don't want to receive their mail; so they can be compelled by law not to send me mail. This is potentially a free speech issue. It would essentially make it illegal for Company X to attempt to communicate with me.

The solution is to allow people to buy a mail-screening service. In the long run, it has the same effect as a do-not-mail list, since (if choices are made public) direct mailers can save money by not sending junk to the people who refuse to receive it.

sage | January 6, 2008, 1:23pm | #

Does any know what the bill was that brought the do not call registry into place? I want to find out whether my reps votes for it(which I'm sure they did) then use that in an email to them asking them also to support a do not mail list.

John C Acshun jaxson the 3rd | January 6, 2008, 1:24pm | #

Personally I like Junk Mail. maybe it's because I'm a capitalist. I don't know. I like analyzing it and then I use it in my own marketing ( again I'm a capitalist, not a liberal journalist).

I like sending it, of course. Maybe some kind of screening or whatever will save me money by not sending offers to people who aren't interested in saving money and receiving high quality services.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 1:26pm | #

It is my understanding from my letter carrier that if you mark junk mail as RTS it goes in a trash bin as USPS will not return it unless return postage has been guaranteed by the sender.

As for as court summons goes, I don't think that's in the same class as junk mail. More in a class with service of process. Aside from that, to make the jury summons stick the court has to prove you got it.

John C. Randolph | January 6, 2008, 1:26pm | #

"The solution is to allow people to buy a mail-screening service."

One can also advise the mail service that they want to block the junk mail. The moral principle is the same, and no additional party is needed.

The junk mailer's right to free speech does *not* include a right to compel me to receive it. I have no moral basis to stop them from sending the junk mail to anyone *else*, but my right to refuse it remains.

-jcr

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 1:29pm | #

AR, often or seldom, in either case the law exists. If you stick an invoice into a FedEx package to send to a client overnight you are required by law to put a first class stamp on the envelope with the invoice in it. The fact that this is impossible to enforce does not make it right.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 1:31pm | #

"Aside from that, to make the jury summons stick the court has to prove you got it."

Somewhat off topic but I have never been on a jury. My employer is willing to continue to pay my sallary if I get on one and I would LOVE to get on one. I have recieved summonses but never got on one. Maybe this is because I am a registered Libertarian.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 1:34pm | #

As I said before, I don't care about junk mail, I'm just arguing in my spare time. It all goes in the recycle bin before I enter the house. The stuff in regular envelopes goes straight into the shredder, unopened. It seems so easy. Occasionally I open something I don't care about, but I never waste time with it. Shred, shred, shred.

And John, I am also a capitalist too, but I rarely purchase anything based upon something that came in the mail. I've also used targeted direct mail myself (years ago). It wasn't that successful but I did get about a 1% response and some of those people still love me today.

I hate spam though. However, I don't ever get spam because I use throwaway email addresses whenever possible. That way, I only get stuff I want. Like from Amazon.

John C Jackson | January 6, 2008, 1:35pm | #

And if I send direct mail- it goes something like this. I go to the site of the company that has the lists, I put in my parameters and get my list. Then I rent it.

Lets say I want to cherry pick 10,000 homeowners in Idaho age 19-29 with HHI over $100,000 to send a targeted offer.

These lists are never 100% accurate ( and they also plant some controls in there) and up to date. Some of the best ones I might get 5% returns.

I am a guy making middle class money. Small business just feeding my kids. So let's say out of this list of 10,000 ( or 1000 or 100,000 or whatever it happens to be), there is 1 person on a "do not mail" list. Perhaps the list company made a mistake or even the "do not mail" entry just hasn't updated and cleaned yet.

(And who/what handles all these requests and makes sure every marketer and database in the country has accurate up to date info? Big Government?).

So I happen to mail to 1 person on some list I don't control. How much am I going to be fined? Am I going to go bankrupt, lose my house, whatever because I sent a piece of mail to one person who didnt want it? I guess if the risk is too high, I could just go out of business. My suppliers and vendors will go out of business too. We will lay off a bunch of people. It's OK, we will all get jobs stocking shelves at Wal-mart. Beats risking actually having a business in the face of BS regulations.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 1:35pm | #

PIR, move to my county. You'll get called for jury duty every year. I always figured it was because I was a libertarian.

John C Jackson | January 6, 2008, 1:36pm | #

For the record, I also support the right of people to go the Cosmo Kramer route.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 1:38pm | #

Wine Commonsewer, what county do you live in?

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 1:38pm | #

Oh, I've never been on a jury, but I do have to show up and not be picked. Thank the lord for a last name at the end of the alphabet. Or something. Actually, I think jurors are treated worse than criminals, but my county has at least made an effort to ease the problem. It seems to be less invasive than it used to be.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 1:38pm | #

Riverside County Ca

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 1:41pm | #

Thanks

Neu Mejican | January 6, 2008, 1:44pm | #

alisa wins the thread.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of the "do not send" list... it is all in the implementation.

A service provided by USPS to screen advertisements from ever entering my mailbox should include personalization much as an email filter. I should decide if I want to receive non-profit or political junk mail, ads from sports companies or viagra-like products... not the USPS or those writing the law setting up the screening.

Some types of correspondence would be ineligible for screening, such as bills, court/official documents, etc.

For those arguing that this is a "free speech" issue... I will see your free speech and raise you free association.


Yes, you can mark mail RTS (Return to Sender) and off it goes at no cost to you. Additionally, if said mailer gets enough RTS mail from you, they might just knock off the mailings.

and

Anyone is perfectly within their rights to refuse a delivery. If they tell the USPS that they don't want to get junk mail, the junk mailers have no right to override that decision.

Both seem correct in principle, but...

You will receive that same piece of mail back in your box. It will not go back to the sender, it will continue to be delivered to you. I used this strategy for awhile. The post-office just sent the same pieces of mail back to me, multiple times.

Formalizing this in a government regulation is a restriction on government action and seems totally appropriate to me.

The Post-Offices concern about job-loss that inspired Radley's post, should not be a factor.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 1:45pm | #

In my county I have to call a number. I don't have to physically show up at the building unless this code I am given in in between the numbers the robot voice tells me. My code is never in between those numbers the robot voice tells me.

Neu Mejican | January 6, 2008, 1:48pm | #

JC Jackson,

So I happen to mail to 1 person on some list I don't control. How much am I going to be fined? Am I going to go bankrupt, lose my house, whatever because I sent a piece of mail to one person who didnt want it? I guess if the risk is too high, I could just go out of business. My suppliers and vendors will go out of business too. We will lay off a bunch of people. It's OK, we will all get jobs stocking shelves at Wal-mart. Beats risking actually having a business in the face of BS regulations.

You assume here a level of complication that does not apply.

I set up the advertisement filter on my mail service, you address a bulk mail to me, the post-office sees that the address is on the list, re-routes it back to you as undeliverable, you scratch that name off of your list. End of story.

Neu Mejican | January 6, 2008, 1:49pm | #

Implementation of the do not send list is no more complicated than a holiday delivery stoppage, or mail forwarding when you move.

Neu Mejican | January 6, 2008, 1:51pm | #

I like sending it, of course. Maybe some kind of screening or whatever will save me money by not sending offers to people who aren't interested in saving money and receiving high quality services.

Yeah, that is the only kind of junk mail I get...ways to save money or receive high quality service.

I laughed out-loud at that one.

gone postal | January 6, 2008, 2:01pm | #

From wikipedia, to bolster arguments on the usps monopoly on letters.

...Until 1979, competition in all letter mail was prohibited. However, faced with imminent legislation to exempt "urgent" letter mail from the monopoly, the Post Office decided on its own to exempt "extremely urgent" letters.[5] Competition in "extremely urgent letters" is allowed under certain conditions: The private carrier must charge at least $3 or twice the U.S. postage, whichever is greater (other stipulations, such as maximum delivery time, apply as well); or, alternatively, it may be delivered for free.[6]...

The Wine Commonsewer | January 6, 2008, 2:03pm | #

PIR, we do have a very similar system in my county as well. I find it much, much better than the old days. The flip side is that these days you can't get out of jury duty for any reason except a death in the family. Yours.

jimmy smith | January 6, 2008, 2:36pm | #

Is it possible for one not to have an address? My financial affairs are electronic. If I choose not to have a driver's license do I need an address? I want to become an non-person, no identification. No voting, no jury duty, nada, rien, zip, zilch. In the words of that great president, All I ask is to be left alone. Why not? Against the law?

Nephilium | January 6, 2008, 2:41pm | #

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter: I just got my first jury summons last month. I get to wake up and go to a county courthouse for five days. I have this strange feeling that the long haired work shirt wearing guy isn't going to get picked... so I just get to waste my time...

Nephilium

marvin | January 6, 2008, 2:42pm | #

I hate ALL advertisements that I do not ask for, but I don't blame USPS. I don't mind paying a little more to support deliverers who can put them in the trash for me.

And USPS is NOT a government agency - hasn't been for over 20 years.

Ali | January 6, 2008, 2:50pm | #

Has someone above considered this:

Every time the PO delivers junk. Write "Return to Sender". That way we cut their profits by 1/2.

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 2:57pm | #

Implementation of the do not send list is no more complicated than a holiday delivery stoppage, or mail forwarding when you move.

This would be true, except implementing those services have a time limit designated on the form you file at USPS.

This would have no time limit. And those cards and maintenance of the registry don't man themselves. Granted, implementation of the "Do Not Mail" list will probably save labor in the long run, but I'm not going to support such a list, especially since it's not comprehensive (

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 3:01pm | #

And USPS is NOT a government agency - hasn't been for over 20 years.

Ding ding ding! we have a winner.

I understand the principles behind opposing the special monopoly granted, but I've never understood wasting time or effort on it. If we got back to the Constitution as it was meant to be in the United States we'd still have a post office.

Also, given that the politicians are never going to ban themselves from sending bulk mail to an individual, I don't support banning certain categories of individuals from using the Post Office.

If you want USPS to offer a Do Not Mail service, call the Postmaster General. Don't pass a law about it.

B | January 6, 2008, 3:17pm | #

I can't believe this thread has gone this long without someone bringing up the obvious Seinfeld reference...

Cesar | January 6, 2008, 3:21pm | #

I agree with Ayn Randian, the government always has and probably always will run the postal service. Even the freaking Articles of Confederation gave the federal government that job. Not because its so incredibly efficent (ha!)but because its a thankless job that really nobody else wants to do.

PLant Immigration Rights Suporter | January 6, 2008, 3:32pm | #

"And USPS is NOT a government agency - hasn't been for over 20 years."

Acording to about.com it is both an agency and a business and does get some taxpayer dinero:
"The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies, and for keeping some rural posts offices in operation."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpostalservice.htm

Plant Immigration RIghts Suporter | January 6, 2008, 3:34pm | #

"but because its a thankless job that really nobody else wants to do."

Next up: The United States Janitorial Service.

Cesar | January 6, 2008, 3:37pm | #

Next up: The United States Janitorial Service.

Owning a Janitorial service can be very profitable.

Delivering mail to Bumfuck, South Dakota that people pay only 30 cents to send? Good luck with that.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 3:37pm | #

Nephilium,

You can bet that if the victim in a murder trial was a guy who had long hair and wore a work shirt when he was murdered that the prosecution would push to have you on that jury.

sine | January 6, 2008, 3:44pm | #

Why be so subtle with the hole digging? Instead, I propose a national program of breaking windows for everyone!

Plant Imigration Rights Suporter | January 6, 2008, 3:44pm | #

"Delivering mail to Bumfuck, South Dakota that people pay only 30 cents to send? Good luck with that."

Perhaps it would cost more than 30 cents, perhaps not. Perhaps a nonprofit organization would take care of rural areas. This might shock some statists but there are people who have motivations besides profit. Fact is, until government lets people experiment with different systems we will simply not know. Rest assured, rural people would get mail.

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 4:00pm | #

This might shock some statists but there are people who have motivations besides profit.

Um, what? Are you calling me a statist for supporting what's written in the freaking Constitution?

Rest assured, rural people would get mail.

Put down the crystal ball, Kreskin.

Lamar | January 6, 2008, 4:06pm | #

"The USPS is a hell of a lot more efficient, friendly and customer-oriented than you think."

You might not want to mistake my objective observations as a "thought". My criticism was a reasonable assessment based on observations made at both NYC post offices (where workers will openly insult you, as if they yearn for the 1970's version of NYC), and central Florida post offices where they will have two workers openly talk on a cell phone while a single counter rep tries to take care of a 25 person line.

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 4:09pm | #

You might not want to mistake my objective observations as a "thought".

Don't get smart. I was assessing the general trend.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

robc | January 6, 2008, 4:11pm | #

I just don't think the "I have no free-market choice" holds water.

Tell that to Lysander Spooner.

There clearly are alternatives. Taking down the mail box is the simplest, most efficient one. Switch to another service. They are out there.

Nope. The law prevents competition in a number of ways, including underpricing the USPS.

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 4:17pm | #

The law prevents competition in a number of ways, including underpricing the USPS.

Best get cracking on that Constitutional Amendment, then.

Good luck...I'm more focused on BCRA, Iraq War, Drug War, immigration, abortion...pretty much everything but the damn Post Office.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 4:20pm | #

I wrote:
"This might shock some statists but there are people who have motivations besides profit."

Ayn_Randian wrote:
"Um, what? Are you calling me a statist for supporting what's written in the freaking Constitution?"

This was not directed specifically at you but, since you ask. Supporting what's written in the freaking Constitution makes you more of a statist than I am.

I wrote:
"Rest assured, rural people would get mail".

Ayn_Randian wrote:
"Put down the crystal ball, Kreskin."

No crystal ball needed. There are laws of economics just as there are laws of physics. One such law is the law of supply and demand. If a demand exists someone, somehow will fill that demand. This law is so powerful that even governments often cannot stop it (see also War on Drugs). Remove government imposed barriers and geography is no barrier.

J sub D | January 6, 2008, 4:20pm | #

Define junk mail. Anything from my ex-wife? My ne'er do well brother's missives? The darned PTA meeting schedule. Congressional newsletters? Guys, there is no right to ber free of commercial speech. I bought the no-call list (with reservations) because you interrupt what you're doing to answer the phone. Not an issue here.


As somebody pointed out, prepaid response cards should always be mailed back blank or with Nyah, nyah, nyahs on them. It keeps the price of first class postage down.

Jehovah's Witnesses bother me A WHOLE LOT MORE than junk mail and I certainly don't want a do not proselytize list with the necessary enforcemnt mechanism. Think this through folks.

Ayn_Randian | January 6, 2008, 4:39pm | #

There are laws of economics just as there are laws of physics. One such law is the law of supply and demand. If a demand exists someone, somehow will fill that demand.

First of all, I'm not a retard. My degree's in econ. Not all "demands" are filled by the market. You're "if a demand exists someone will fit it" stuff is the stuff of religion. I demand a free pony and hot hookers at 10 dollars an hour. Guess what? I demand it, no one supplies it. Darn.

Supporting what's written in the freaking Constitution makes you more of a statist than I am.

uh-oh, looks like we have another Anarchrist on our hands. Making the perfect the enemy of the good and all that.

I suppose you're so super-duper anti-statist that you don't pay your income taxes either?

robc | January 6, 2008, 4:55pm | #

Best get cracking on that Constitutional Amendment, then.

No amendment needed to change the law allowing competition. The con doesnt guarantee the USPS a monopoly.

robc | January 6, 2008, 4:57pm | #

A_R,

Also, just because something isnt the most important issue doesnt mean people shouldnt care about it.

abc | January 6, 2008, 5:04pm | #

Yes, the USPS's statement is a little silly, but I'm equally confused by the poster's statements.

Wouldn't the proper libertarian response to a proposed "do not mail" list to say that (1) mailers have a First Amendment right to send people mail -- including commercial speech soliciting the recipient's business; so (2) government should stay out of the business of saying who can mail whom?

Or do libertarian principles go out the window just so that you can take a cheap shot at the USPS?

robc | January 6, 2008, 5:12pm | #

abc,

The issue is:

1. I have the right to determine who can deliver to MY mailbox.

2. I have the right to negotiate a filter with those delivery companies.

The problem is that the USPS is governmental. In a hyopthetical free market, I can tell Fed Ex to stop delivering bulk mail to me. Multiple outcomes:

A. They agree
B. They say no and I either accept all or none
C. They say no and I tell them to stop delivering to me

I dont generally support doing things like this with a law but since the USPS is a (quasi-) government agency then passing a law is roughly equivalent to a shareholders vote.

NoStar | January 6, 2008, 5:13pm | #

If Balko's program of having one federal agency dig holes and another to fill them is enacted, for the safety of the children we will need two more federal agencies. The first will pay hole diggers not to dig and the second will pay hole fillers not to fill.

J sub D | January 6, 2008, 5:28pm | #

A. They agree
B. They say no and I either accept all or none
C. They say no and I tell them to stop delivering to me

FYI robc, options (B) and (C) are available from the friendly folks at USPS. Somehow I doubt you are going to exercise those options. Somehow I doubt that Fedex or UPS is willing to give you option (A) an filter your incoming deliveries either.

IOW, get over it folks. Life ain't perfect and little irritations abound. Y'know in the not so distant past the USPS did regularly make decisions on what to deliver, based on content, as a matter of policy. They still do IRT child porn. Am I the only one who remembers that friggin' Playboy Magazine had to go to court to get the USPS to deliver in as bulk mail?

If the cure is worse than the disease, live with the disease.

robc | January 6, 2008, 5:43pm | #

J sub D,

Hey, Im fine with it. All Im saying is if the "shareholders" decide to change the internal policy of the USPS, Im in favor of it.

robc | January 6, 2008, 5:45pm | #

J sub D,

The other is because of the USPS monopoly, I cant negotiate with multiple companies until 1 gives me a filter Im happy with. Right now, I can use many different products to filter my email.

robc | January 6, 2008, 5:47pm | #

In a true free market, there might be a mail delivery company willing to pay me to not filter out bulk mail.

J sub D | January 6, 2008, 5:52pm | #

The other is because of the USPS monopoly, I cant negotiate with multiple companies until 1 gives me a filter Im happy with. Right now, I can use many different products to filter my email.

Assuming competition, which I support, the following still applies

You don't pay for the delivery.
You don't decide which company delivers it.
The sender does.
Would the sender, being a rational, profit minded businessperson, contract with a company that charges more (cost of filtering), and delivers to < 100% of desired recipients?

Think!

prolefeed | January 6, 2008, 6:11pm | #

I just don't think the "I have no free-market choice" holds water. There clearly are alternatives. Taking down the mail box is the simplest, most efficient one. Switch to another service. They are out there.

martin, FedEx and whatnot exist because the postal monopoly is on first-class mail, not ALL mail. If FedEx were to start delivering first-class mail, their executives would probably go to jail. That's the problem. Allow others to compete with the USPS, and I'd be fine with the USPS doing whatever the heck they want, so long as they didn't get any subsidies.

Plant Immigration Rights Suporter | January 6, 2008, 6:13pm | #

"I demand a free pony and hot hookers at 10 dollars an hour."

Well, in a free market you could probably get yourself hookers at that price. You might want to take protection. As for the free pony check the ads in the paper. Free kittens and free puppies are not uncommon. In a truly free society you would probably have a similar situation with ponies.

"uh-oh, looks like we have another Anarchrist on our hands. Making the perfect the enemy of the good and all that."

I am an Anarchist but no, I don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. I am the Objectivist's worst enemy: a pragmatist.

"I suppose you're so super-duper anti-statist that you don't pay your income taxes either?"

See above

prolefeed | January 6, 2008, 6:15pm | #

J sub D -- Introducing competition would also need to have the proviso that consumers have the right to put NO USPS MAIL ALLOWED on their mailboxes, and make it an actionable offense for the USPS to ignore that equivalent of a NO TRESPASSING sign (or a NO POLLUTING sign, if you will).

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 6, 2008, 6:17pm | #

"Jehovah's Witnesses bother me A WHOLE LOT MORE than junk mail and I certainly don't want a do not proselytize list with the necessary enforcemnt mechanism. Think this through folks."

You don't need one. A "NO SOCLICITATION" sign works fine. Can I put a "NO JUNK MAIL" sign on my mail box and stop it that way?

J sub D | January 6, 2008, 6:40pm | #

You don't need one. A "NO SOCLICITATION" sign works fine.

In some neighborhoods.

Can I put a "NO JUNK MAIL" sign on my mail box and stop it that way?

Nope. I just throw it out. It probably occupys 2.5 sec, 5 times a week.

J sub D | January 6, 2008, 6:45pm | #

Introducing competition would also need to have the proviso that consumers have the right to put NO USPS MAIL ALLOWED on their mailboxes, and make it an actionable offense for the USPS to ignore that equivalent of a NO TRESPASSING sign (or a NO POLLUTING sign, if you will).

prolefeed, are you going to take the time to file a complaint and appear in court because UPS left a Victoria's Secret catalog on your porch? UPS will deliver anything to an address because THE CUSTOMER paid for it. You'll complain but take no legal action because it ain't worth your time. That's reality. Free market or not.

Jennifer | January 6, 2008, 6:48pm | #

Wait a minute Radley, I think your anti-gubmint streak just got away from you.
If companies want to pay the USPS to deliver their ads what's wrong with that? Free market in action, no?

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if someone else brought this up, but: more and more places these days charge for garbage removal based on how much garbage is removed. So your sending me unwanted mail costs ME money, because I have to pay to get rid of it. The same holds true for people who live in those rural areas where you have to take your own garbage to the dump.

agentalbert | January 6, 2008, 7:41pm | #

A lot of the junk mail I get isn't really mail. There is no delivery address, no return address, and no postage stamp on it. It's just junk advertising that the post office charges money to stick in my mail box. I have asked at different post offices more than once how to opt out of it, and they won't let you. Since they charge for every piece they stick in my box, they have no incentive to allow a customer to opt out of it. I think its BS and that we should be able to. Sometimes, I take a bunch of the crap with me and stick it in a post office box. Let them deal with the trash they create.

Sort of a separate issue, but when I lived in an apartment, all these adds just created litter. Lazy people would often just drop them right on the ground. There used to be a trash can there by the mail boxes, but it would fill up and people would still try to put these junk adds there and they would blow around and just become litter on the ground. So the complex took away the trash can, and then there was still just as much litter as some people were too lazy or too annoyed to take the crap back to their own trash cans.

But thankfully we can't opt out, we need to keep the public servant tit swollen and flowing.

Pig Mannix | January 6, 2008, 7:49pm | #

I agree with Ayn Randian, the government always has and probably always will run the postal service. Even the freaking Articles of Confederation gave the federal government that job. Not because its so incredibly efficent (ha!)but because its a thankless job that really nobody else wants to do.

Yeah, but it's also becoming an increasingly obsolete job. Almost all of my personnel correspondence is done by either email or phone, and my routine financial transactions are likewise done online. And when was the last time you bought a product from a company that offered the USPS as delivery option, rather than FedEx or UPS?

A friend that works for the USPS tells me that the bulk of the deliveries they perform now are third-class mail - that is, junk mail. We really need a federal post-office to ensure advertisers can reach us?

boo boo | January 6, 2008, 9:21pm | #

The junk mail is what is keeping first class postage so low...
The Post Office is not supposed to be making any profit.
There is no way the Post Office can sustain itself if junk mail goes away.
This will mean skyrocketing postage in order to afford universal delivery which I think is a very important factor that keeps our mail safe and out of the hands of private mailers who could close up shop in a minute when they realize how much labor does go into mailing something.
Blue collar postal workers are paid a living wage.

If you pay them less, many would not want to keep the job and the turnover would be horrible as far as training new hires to get up to speed with everything.

We can recycle junk mail and that is what we should be pushing for...not handing over postal work to the lowest bidder.

have a very nice day!

Ventifact | January 6, 2008, 9:39pm | #

And when was the last time you bought a product from a company that offered the USPS as delivery option, rather than FedEx or UPS?

It's not hard, although maybe my personal example isn't a significant enough mail user or commerce entity to effectively break this particular point of yours?

This is one of those threads that not only is almost entirely un-about what the H&R blogger was really driving at, but the thread was long and interesting enough that multiple waves of posters debated the same topics with eachother. (Thus this minor nit-pick is all I have to add.) These tend to be my faves on here.

Vent | January 6, 2008, 9:47pm | #

Oh and...

We can recycle junk mail and that is what we should be pushing for...not handing over postal work to the lowest bidder.

Yes, you're right. How silly that we should want to avoid wasting money for no reason. Let's do our best to avoid any lowest bidders.

I am also reading into your comment the notion that there would be ONE mail carrier, determined by their lowest bid, but that is really only a worst-of-both-worlds solution. In a free market of mail carriers with MULTIPLE companies you would not stay with a mail carrier if you were unsatisfied by the mail service you were getting. Think hotels.

This does illuminate why and with what emphasis Balko posted this story in the first place though. Outside of circles like H&R, the discourse springing from a story like this is not about the topics mostly covered by posters here, it IS about wasting money through the government (which to many is an oxymoronic phrase) for gratifying notions of fairness, civic pride, employment, etc.

crimethink | January 6, 2008, 11:07pm | #

One day last week, a particularly annoying junk mailer sent me a giant, letter-sized rigid flyer. Ever anxious to please, the mailman stuck it into my mailbox without closing the lid, since the flyer wouldn't fit without bending it.

Then, it started raining. When I got home, all my mail was soaking wet because the lid hadn't been closed. But I got the crucially important communication from the junk mailer -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, explaining how much she was doing for upstate NY.

It's almost enough to make me switch parties to vote for Obama...

Malto Dextrin | January 6, 2008, 11:12pm | #

Why not just pay the advertisers to NOT print the junk mail, and the USPS to NOT deliver it?

Hey, it works for farmers and Archer Daniels Midland.

robc | January 6, 2008, 11:34pm | #

Based on Malto Dextrins's last post and mine earlier suggesting that I might be willing to be paid to accept junk mail, this clearly presents itself as a problem with a Coase Theorem solution.

The key is in defining the property rights. Do I own my mailbox or does the USPS? Which way minimizes transaction costs in the bargaining to reach the most efficient solution?

grumpy realist | January 7, 2008, 12:49am | #

Well, I'm now convinced. There does not exist an issue about which a libertarian will not whine about "rights!" and whatever it is, the problem is that the "market isn't free enough!"

You guys sound just like Marxists, except in their case it's "the system isn't communistic enough!"

boo boo | January 7, 2008, 1:08am | #

Mailers advertise through the mail because the response is worth it to them
(people are reading their just mail before recycling it)
First Class Postage rates are low because it is subsidized by advertising mail.
(it would go up even more than gas if there is no control over it)
People who get mail that sticks out of their mailbox should get a bigger mailbox. (Don't exagerate and tell me that that is the only oversize item that ever held your lid open)
Privatizing the postal service would open up the mailbox to unsavory hands, who would pay for that in the long run?.
(You will with no accountability the mail service will rot and get more expensive, when ATT was forced to break up...did our phone costs go down, do you even use your home phone as much as you used to but still pay more than when you used it for everything?)
Some people only think about here and now and me and mine...
You cost this country a lot with your shortsightedness!

The Wine Commonsewer | January 7, 2008, 1:09am | #

Jehovah's Witnesses bother me A WHOLE LOT MORE than junk mail and I certainly don't want a do not proselytize list with the necessary enforcemnt mechanism. Think this through folks.

Me too. But they're trespassing. I had to threaten to get a court order to get them to leave me alone. Telling them to get TF off my property was largely ineffective.

Ventifact | January 7, 2008, 3:22am | #

Privatizing the postal service would open up the mailbox to unsavory hands, who would pay for that in the long run?.

This is all pretty formulaic stuff, but:
• What makes mail service more susceptible to "abuse" by unsavory companies than all the other necessary services that are privately run now (like, e.g., the food you eat)?
• What makes you so certain unsavory hands would survive in an open market where the current semi-competitors (FedEx, UPS, DHL) go to great lengths to assure their customers of reliability, punctuality, parcel tracking, etc.?

Note also that the Postal Service runs on diminished expenses because it is exempt from many government fees and taxes even though it draws on those other public services just as private enterprises do. The postal service is not maintaining a level of quality we would otherwise lack, nor is it keeping costs below the otherwise exorbitant levels we would pay.

Shawn | January 7, 2008, 8:29am | #

Wow! I thought this would be a cut-and-dried libertarian issue.

This issue for me is this: when someone sends me junk mail, he's paying for the cost of delivery, but he's not paying me to receive it. He's imposing a cost on me.

If the delivery of these packages were free market based, then I could choose the service that best met my needs and I would not support further government intervention. It's not, and I do.

jimmy smith | January 6, 2008, 2:36pm | #
Is it possible for one not to have an address? My financial affairs are electronic.

It's possible, but not practical. I've been putting this to the test for the last 4-5 months. I have an address with this company http://www.earthclassmail.com/ and I've tried to avoid using it whenever possible, because it costs me money.

When I've needed it:
My bank requires an address, even though I use electronic statements. When I make an online payment with my check card it typically requires entering a zip code and that zip code must match the one on my bank account.

I have a business and the CEO address is a required part of the annual registration with the state.

The IRS continues to send me mail and I haven't figured out a way to have them deal with me entirely electronically, yet.

In general there are a lot of big companies (and government agencies) out there with business rules that assume you have an address. Small companies make the same assumption, but their processes tend to be less automated and they deal with exceptions.

Russ 2000 | January 7, 2008, 9:25am | #

I was considering digging holes in my front yard just so I could laugh when the letter carrier falls into it. Cuz they NEVER use the sidewalk. They avoid the nicely shoveled-and-salted sidewalk and walk over and through the mounds of snow, so I'm sure they'd just walk into the holes since going around them would be going out of their way.

Ayn_Randian | January 7, 2008, 9:57am | #

I am the Objectivist's worst enemy: a pragmatist.

Sure you are sweetie...we're all terrified of you and your cute little mask and your cape with a big "P" on it.

Tym | January 7, 2008, 2:54pm | #

We obviously need a Ministry of Silly Walks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_of_Silly_Walks

MARTYSS42 | January 7, 2008, 3:33pm | #

THE LAST TIME I LOOKED IN MY UNION'S CONTRACT, THE USPS IS PROHIBITED FROM LAYING OFF THE MAJORITY OF ITS' EMPLOYEES - THEREFORE THE USPS MANAGER WHO STATED THIS EVIDENTLY DOES NOT READ HIS COPY OF THE UNION CONTRACT.

FURTHERMORE, "JUNK MAIL" IS THE LEAST INVASIVE OF ALL FORMS OF ADVERTISING. THROW-IT-AWAY INSTEAD OF ANSWERING THE PHONE DURING DINNER OR THOSE VERY ANNOYING TELEVISION ADS DURING YOUR FAVORITE SHOW OR PLAYOFF SPORTING EVENT.

I'D RATHER CHOOSE TO READ IT OR THROW-IT-AWAY THAN PUT UP WITH POP-UP ADS ON MY SCREEN OR BIG BILLBOARDS ACROSS THE BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPES OF OUR GREAT LAND. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

agentalbert | January 7, 2008, 4:11pm | #

BooBoo wrote: "(You will with no accountability the mail service will rot and get more expensive, when ATT was forced to break up...did our phone costs go down, do you even use your home phone as much as you used to but still pay more than when you used it for everything?)"

Huh? Phone costs are much lower now than they used to be. Where were the ubiquitous unlimited long distance calling plans for $20 a month? Oh, that's right. They didn't exist.

boo boo | January 7, 2008, 4:45pm | #

I am talking land lines doofus!
Prove to me your home phone line is cheaper than before the break up.
(compare it to how postage has gone up okay)
PS ATT owns just about everything again anyway

PLant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 7, 2008, 5:06pm | #

"Sure you are sweetie...we're all terrified of you and your cute little mask and your cape with a big "P" on it."

Ayn_Randian, evidently the former Hollywood screen writer you named yourself after was. Or don't Objectivists read her essays anymore? I did back when I was in my Objectivist phase. That was before I discovered more thoughtful pro-free market writers like Heinlein, Mises, Rothbard and even David Kelley who was excommunicated by Pope Peikoff.

Plant Immigration RIghts Supporter | January 7, 2008, 5:11pm | #

"Wow! I thought this would be a cut-and-dried libertarian issue."

So did I.

"This issue for me is this: when someone sends me junk mail, he's paying for the cost of delivery, but he's not paying me to receive it. He's imposing a cost on me."

Very well said.

Bobster | January 7, 2008, 7:22pm | #

You better not take down your mailbox in the hope of avoiding junk mail. I'm pretty sure it is illegal to not have a mailbox on your property.

Postalguyforlife | January 7, 2008, 7:45pm | #

I just happend to come across this line of thought....I have been a letter carrier for about 14 yrs....i do enjoy my job....it is stressful at times.....undue pressures by the boss...just like your job, as to some of the previous thoughts....Fedex, UPS, etc...can deliver your mail for you...we charge 41 cents...to anywhere in the country....can get most places in a few days, I know the others charge quite a bit more....it is your choice....thats why we are FREE!!!!...there is no stipulation that they cannot deliver first class mail...just depends on whether the sender wants to pay the 10-14 dollars for each item to send it..i am not knocking Fedex, UPS i believe the work hard and do a great job also..I take care with my customers to ensure they get their mail....think about Christmas time....when you get that card...that didnt quite have the right address on it....or no street number whatsoever...but it still made it to your house.....we do make mistakes...to err is human...but majority of us try to do our best to get the mail delivered in an efficient manner...How many names we have to remember....i have about 700 customers that i deliver to daily...i have to remember their names...several names...if their are combined families....the names of people that have moved from that address....in order for you not to get that mail...etc....let me enlighten you if you have questions you arent sure about this job....i am there when it is 110 degrees and when it is 10 below....

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 7, 2008, 8:06pm | #

Postal guy, I am not "anti-postal-worker" and I don't think there is anyone who posted on this thread who is. All I want is for top down federal regulations to be repealed that make it harder for other carriers to compete (or as an alternative a do not postal-spam list.) I am sure there are also oodles and oodl