[fivea]

> The argument is specific to logistics. Our government has a poor track record in that domain outside the military.

US public services have a long track record of being actively sabotaged by governments. See the US Post Office being undermined by Trump's appointment of DeJoy.

[JumpCrisscross]

> US public services have a long track record of being actively sabotaged by governments. See the US Post Office being undermined by Trump's appointment of DeJoy.

Why they have a poor track record is a separate discussion.

[fivea]

> Why they have a poor track record is a separate discussion.

The whole point is that if you're trying to dismiss an obvious option for it's track record, even though it is quite capable and able to do the legwork, then being aware of the root cause of that problem, and the fact that it's an artificial constraint with ideological roots, is very much central to the discussion.

[JumpCrisscross]

> being aware of the root cause of that problem, and the fact that it's an artificial constraint with ideological roots, is very much central to the discussion

It's proximate, not central, to the question of whether centralising logistics will improve outcomes.

The central question is whether the USPS, as a centralized, federally-controlled logistics network, works better than its privately-owned, de-centralised freight counterparts. It doesn't. That it's being sabotaged is good to be aware of. But it's not super relevant to the core question, and frankly, an argument against centralization since it suggests moving from a domain where they're being neglected by one set of parties to one where it's being sabotaged by another.

[throwawayboise]

The post office was a mess long before Trump.