[GhettoComputers]

That sounds great actually, they deliver mostly spam and already don’t serve all rural areas. Most banks have paperless options as well. It isn’t efficient and there is no way to opt out of spam, the loss of the public harm and needlessly cutting down trees sounds great!

[w0de0]

The internet also delivers mostly spam, and is still a public good.

The USPS needs reform, sure. But a public postal service which will deliver mail to everywhere, even at a loss, is fundamental to civilized society. Prior to the internet, this public good was more obvious. It's still needed.

Amazon delivers efficiently to 95% of addresses, so long as there's a profit to be had, and this is good for buyers. The USPS delivers to 100%, regardless of profit, and this is good for citizens and businesses - bills, legal documents, ballots and governments' communications are receivable at nearly every address in every state, thanks to the USPS. That's a tremendous public good.

If there were possible to talk about the American postal service non-ideologically, it would be a cinch to regulate away most junk mail, I imagine. Political oversight has in recent decades demanded the USPS be profitable, which misses its point.

[GhettoComputers]

> The USPS delivers to 100%, regardless of profit.

False. Did you see the part I said it already don’t serve all areas?

> The internet also delivers mostly spam, and is still a public good.

Compared to what and by what metric? You can’t opt out of physical spam, would you call it a public good (what does that mean?) if you couldn’t stop spam?

> If there were possible to talk about the American postal service non-ideologically, it would be a cinch to regulate away most junk mail, I imagine.

So you’re advocating for privatizing them?

> Political oversight has in recent decades demanded the USPS be profitable, which misses its point.

What is the point? It’s been talked about as a terrible monopoly for decades. It wasn’t profitable before they asked it to stop squandering money.