4 ms·

> But have you considered that they _genuinely_ belive that minimal government and more privatization leads to overall better results? It might just be that the

> But have you considered that they _genuinely_ belive that minimal government and more privatization leads to overall better results? It might just be that they have good intensions, that they really wish for a better outcome for all. Yes, and that makes it even worse. They’re so out of touch with common people and so insulated from routine everyday life, their opinion shouldn’t count for anything. I don’t care if joe programmer on HN or Jeff the General Contractor at the bar are advocating for dismantling the post office because of libertarian ideology, because they have neither the power nor resources to affect change. I do care when insanely wealthy billionaires who are completely insulated from the rest of society argue for horseshit like this because they have power to change it, and it’s for ideological reasons. It’s pure narcissism to argue for a position that would negatively affect millions of people when the one arguing for change wouldn’t suffer one damn bit and in effect disregard everyone else’s suffering for their ideological bullshit position. The existence of billionaires combined with Citizens United is an actual problem, the post office is not.

sparkling 6y ago
> [...] their opinion shouldn’t count for anything. Dangerous path there, buddy. > [...] to argue for a position that would negatively affect millions of people [...] Again, it seems impossible for you to even grasp that they might geniuely believe that their way of doing things might lead to better outcome for all, including people living in poverty. > The existence of billionaires combined with Citizens United is an actual problem, the post office is not. I guess well have to agree to disagree. Kind regards from me (definitely not a billionaire and not even close to a millionaire)
- codemac 6y ago
  A billionaire's opinion should not count more than any other random person's opinion. Genuinely believing something is good on the part of a billionaire has no bearing on whether or not their vote should count once per human or once per dollar.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  Why should we listen to someone who probably doesn’t ever open their own mail or pay a bill or send a package regarding the postal service? They don’t have to deal with the change they’re advocating for, they have the resources to actually change things. > Dangerous path there, buddy. Their opinion should count as much as any regular person. I’m not arguing for silencing anyone, merely limiting their outsized influence. I should’ve clarified this in my original post. How would privatizing the mail help the poor? I’m curious.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Why should we listen to you? Most people don’t experience the change they advocate for. Removing money from politics is a good thing but I’m wary of outright saying certain people don’t matter. That doesn’t lead anywhere good.
    - quickthrowman 6y ago
      I’m arguing in favor of keeping mail delivery under the USPS because it’s one of the few functional democratic government services available. The government uses the USPS to send out many notices, payments, census forms, and so on. It’s a small miracle that one can place a postcard in a mailbox anywhere in the US and have it delivered to almost any address (some areas have mail service at a post office instead of home delivery). The utility of this service being available to everyone for the same price regardless of location is more valuable than any increased competition created by removing the USPS monopoly on first-class letters. I’m arguing in favor of a system that everyone can access for a low cost, a service one could rightly consider essential. Why should you should listen to me (or any other poster in this thread arguing in favor of keeping the status quo postal system) instead of the Koch brothers? I take the needs of everyone into consideration when formulating my argument instead of ideological or profit motives. Do you think it would be beneficial to the nation to saddle poor rural people with mail rates 10-50x what they are now when we have a perfectly functional system? I don’t, because it screws over the least fortunate to benefit.. who? It literally does not affect me if I have to pay .55 to mail a letter, but someone living on $700/mo that needs to use the private mail to mail a $10 letter will absolutely notice. Why destroy a functional and equitable system just so rich people in cities can pay less for postage? It’s not practical or fair. I also clarified my position on the influence of billionaires and their opinions: They shouldn’t be ignored completely, but they should not be allowed to have the massive outsized influence they currently enjoy. Their opinion should count no more or less than anyone else.
- salawat 6y ago
  >Again, it seems impossible for you to even grasp that they might geniuely believe that their way of doing things might lead to better outcome for all, including people living in poverty. Genuine belief does not excuse reality blindness or intellectual stop points. I genuinely believe the world would have so many fewer problems if people would just stop being dicks. Alas, I am neither justified nor reasonable to present that as an answer to every problem. I have to stop, consider the details of what is there, the history of the edifice, the use case it fulfills, the fact the existence of the service is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that if you want it changed, it's going to take a Constitutional Convention, plus a 2/3's ratification amongst the States. If I want what I consider a problematic piece of the infrastructure of the United States of America to go away, I must come to terms with reality. >>The existence of billionaires combined with Citizens United is an actual problem, the post office is not. I'd qualify that with "the existence of billionaires [where large chunks of the capital flowing through them is not cycling back through the country via taxes] is a large threat to the country". Citizen's United alone is a bloody travesty against the very fabric of civic interaction, as a legal fiction by definition skews the equation away from all votes being equal; particularly when media exposure and marketing becomes more important in the act of campaigning than actually knowing what it is your Constituent's actually want, and the fact it is only management who gets to direct the support or capital of the legal fiction with no regard to wishes of the workers (in the case of a corporation directly) or well, workers again, in that it is infrequently seen that wages have gone up in anywhere near the proportion of income/revenue of corporate entities has. Therefore, it is rather obvious that value is likely being tied up in corporate or capital-gains tax write-offs in the forms of donations to possibly independent, yet aligned PAC's. >I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I realize that's the polite response, but for whatever reason, it has just always rung as condescending to me. I prefer a heartfelt "I disagree", or "I beg to differ;" but to each their own. Would still debate with over a beer or two.
bmitc 6y ago
I agree with you in that wealthy people are given too much power in the U.S. In the U.S., becoming wealthy has somehow become a fast pass to do basically whatever you want and inflict change that could affect millions of people negatively or be self-beneficial (to the wealthy person) or both. Allowing individuals to accumulate so much wealth is just not good for the common people, and the fact that our government is so inept at managing money isn't a good enough reason to allow individuals to reach such power and wealth. If they are allowed to accumulate such wealth, there should be much stronger laws preventing their influence in government policies.
- 8ytecoder 6y ago
  Almost like a warlord. They have the power to rule us (albeit indirectly) with their wealth and lobbying power instead of weapons and fear.
  - Frondo 6y ago
    When I saw that Jeff Bezos increased his wealth by $13 billion in a single day recently, when 28 million Americans are facing potential eviction, I just thought...we have kings again.
- coliveira 6y ago
  Americans understood this fully well 100 years ago. That's why we nowadays still have laws against monopolies (antitrust). The antitrust laws were created not just for an abstract reason, they were meant to curtail the power of the Robber Barons of the time, who managed to create powerful companies and control large parts of the country's economy and politics. Due to propaganda spread by the same kind of people, we are now almost in a similar situation, with a small group holding almost unmitigated power over the country. At this point billionaires are only disputing among themselves for the direction of the country, they really don't care the least for what you and me think.
8ytecoder 6y ago
It’s also extremely hypothetical. And counter examples on why it won’t work is plenty abound. The concept that market and competition will result in better services and price and efficient operations is true only when then there are checks and balances in place. Market collusion, using monopoly power to squish and consolidate power and extort people happen in almost every industry. I do share their concern that govt enterprises can become corrupt or complacent but I don’t share the the view that the solution is privatisation. Our elected government officials are also corrupt, should we throw away democracy?
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  Agreed, there are no truly free capitalist markets in the US, except maybe black markets. The USPS is damn good at delivering the mail, I don’t trust any private company to treat a first-class letter with the care the USPS generally does. The Post Office actually makes money, but they’re legally required to fund a new hire’s entire projected pension at the time of hiring which lets Republicans point at how the post office loses money when it was done that way on purpose.
  - nickff 6y ago
    What you're saying about pension payments is all wrong. They have the same obligation to fund promised benefits as any private company (which is different from government entities), and they haven't been making the payments.[1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-pensions--some-key-myths-and-facts/#1462ee2d47f5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p...
    - coliveira 6y ago
      The situation of pensions is that the USPS is required by a law created by republicans to pre-pay their retirement fund for the next 75 years, something that no company in the world does. Not only this, but the money they pay is being diverted to the general government accounts, so it is possible that in the future the pension money is not there anyway, if the government decide not to provide the money in the future. The law had two draconian results: the USPS has to operate in the red, and the government has additional revenue that facilitated the tax cuts proposed by republicans.
andrewlgood 6y ago
Because you don’t agree with his position. I bet when Bloomberg offers hundreds of millions of dollars to support green energy you suddenly feel great about billionaires working to save the planet.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  Promoting alternative energy is not equal to dismantling a public service used by every single person in the US that would almost certainly be worse, or more expensive if privatized. I’ll take the bait and offer you my position on green energy. My employer performs alternative energy work, so that part would make me feel good, but I don’t have a strong left position on energy. I’m fine with nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, and hydro for generating electricity. I believe reducing the amount of coal we use is generally a good thing. That about sums it up.

sparkling 6y ago

> [...] their opinion shouldn’t count for anything. Dangerous path there, buddy. > [...] to argue for a position that would negatively affect millions of people [...] Again, it seems impossible for you to even grasp that they might geniuely believe that their way of doing things might lead to better outcome for all, including people living in poverty. > The existence of billionaires combined with Citizens United is an actual problem, the post office is not. I guess well have to agree to disagree. Kind regards from me (definitely not a billionaire and not even close to a millionaire)

codemac 6y ago
A billionaire's opinion should not count more than any other random person's opinion. Genuinely believing something is good on the part of a billionaire has no bearing on whether or not their vote should count once per human or once per dollar.
quickthrowman 6y ago
Why should we listen to someone who probably doesn’t ever open their own mail or pay a bill or send a package regarding the postal service? They don’t have to deal with the change they’re advocating for, they have the resources to actually change things. > Dangerous path there, buddy. Their opinion should count as much as any regular person. I’m not arguing for silencing anyone, merely limiting their outsized influence. I should’ve clarified this in my original post. How would privatizing the mail help the poor? I’m curious.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Why should we listen to you? Most people don’t experience the change they advocate for. Removing money from politics is a good thing but I’m wary of outright saying certain people don’t matter. That doesn’t lead anywhere good.
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
    I’m arguing in favor of keeping mail delivery under the USPS because it’s one of the few functional democratic government services available. The government uses the USPS to send out many notices, payments, census forms, and so on. It’s a small miracle that one can place a postcard in a mailbox anywhere in the US and have it delivered to almost any address (some areas have mail service at a post office instead of home delivery). The utility of this service being available to everyone for the same price regardless of location is more valuable than any increased competition created by removing the USPS monopoly on first-class letters. I’m arguing in favor of a system that everyone can access for a low cost, a service one could rightly consider essential. Why should you should listen to me (or any other poster in this thread arguing in favor of keeping the status quo postal system) instead of the Koch brothers? I take the needs of everyone into consideration when formulating my argument instead of ideological or profit motives. Do you think it would be beneficial to the nation to saddle poor rural people with mail rates 10-50x what they are now when we have a perfectly functional system? I don’t, because it screws over the least fortunate to benefit.. who? It literally does not affect me if I have to pay .55 to mail a letter, but someone living on $700/mo that needs to use the private mail to mail a $10 letter will absolutely notice. Why destroy a functional and equitable system just so rich people in cities can pay less for postage? It’s not practical or fair. I also clarified my position on the influence of billionaires and their opinions: They shouldn’t be ignored completely, but they should not be allowed to have the massive outsized influence they currently enjoy. Their opinion should count no more or less than anyone else.
salawat 6y ago
>Again, it seems impossible for you to even grasp that they might geniuely believe that their way of doing things might lead to better outcome for all, including people living in poverty. Genuine belief does not excuse reality blindness or intellectual stop points. I genuinely believe the world would have so many fewer problems if people would just stop being dicks. Alas, I am neither justified nor reasonable to present that as an answer to every problem. I have to stop, consider the details of what is there, the history of the edifice, the use case it fulfills, the fact the existence of the service is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that if you want it changed, it's going to take a Constitutional Convention, plus a 2/3's ratification amongst the States. If I want what I consider a problematic piece of the infrastructure of the United States of America to go away, I must come to terms with reality. >>The existence of billionaires combined with Citizens United is an actual problem, the post office is not. I'd qualify that with "the existence of billionaires [where large chunks of the capital flowing through them is not cycling back through the country via taxes] is a large threat to the country". Citizen's United alone is a bloody travesty against the very fabric of civic interaction, as a legal fiction by definition skews the equation away from all votes being equal; particularly when media exposure and marketing becomes more important in the act of campaigning than actually knowing what it is your Constituent's actually want, and the fact it is only management who gets to direct the support or capital of the legal fiction with no regard to wishes of the workers (in the case of a corporation directly) or well, workers again, in that it is infrequently seen that wages have gone up in anywhere near the proportion of income/revenue of corporate entities has. Therefore, it is rather obvious that value is likely being tied up in corporate or capital-gains tax write-offs in the forms of donations to possibly independent, yet aligned PAC's. >I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I realize that's the polite response, but for whatever reason, it has just always rung as condescending to me. I prefer a heartfelt "I disagree", or "I beg to differ;" but to each their own. Would still debate with over a beer or two.

bmitc 6y ago

I agree with you in that wealthy people are given too much power in the U.S. In the U.S., becoming wealthy has somehow become a fast pass to do basically whatever you want and inflict change that could affect millions of people negatively or be self-beneficial (to the wealthy person) or both. Allowing individuals to accumulate so much wealth is just not good for the common people, and the fact that our government is so inept at managing money isn't a good enough reason to allow individuals to reach such power and wealth. If they are allowed to accumulate such wealth, there should be much stronger laws preventing their influence in government policies.

8ytecoder 6y ago
Almost like a warlord. They have the power to rule us (albeit indirectly) with their wealth and lobbying power instead of weapons and fear.
- Frondo 6y ago
  When I saw that Jeff Bezos increased his wealth by $13 billion in a single day recently, when 28 million Americans are facing potential eviction, I just thought...we have kings again.
coliveira 6y ago
Americans understood this fully well 100 years ago. That's why we nowadays still have laws against monopolies (antitrust). The antitrust laws were created not just for an abstract reason, they were meant to curtail the power of the Robber Barons of the time, who managed to create powerful companies and control large parts of the country's economy and politics. Due to propaganda spread by the same kind of people, we are now almost in a similar situation, with a small group holding almost unmitigated power over the country. At this point billionaires are only disputing among themselves for the direction of the country, they really don't care the least for what you and me think.

8ytecoder 6y ago

It’s also extremely hypothetical. And counter examples on why it won’t work is plenty abound. The concept that market and competition will result in better services and price and efficient operations is true only when then there are checks and balances in place. Market collusion, using monopoly power to squish and consolidate power and extort people happen in almost every industry. I do share their concern that govt enterprises can become corrupt or complacent but I don’t share the the view that the solution is privatisation. Our elected government officials are also corrupt, should we throw away democracy?

quickthrowman 6y ago
Agreed, there are no truly free capitalist markets in the US, except maybe black markets. The USPS is damn good at delivering the mail, I don’t trust any private company to treat a first-class letter with the care the USPS generally does. The Post Office actually makes money, but they’re legally required to fund a new hire’s entire projected pension at the time of hiring which lets Republicans point at how the post office loses money when it was done that way on purpose.
- nickff 6y ago
  What you're saying about pension payments is all wrong. They have the same obligation to fund promised benefits as any private company (which is different from government entities), and they haven't been making the payments.[1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-pensions--some-key-myths-and-facts/#1462ee2d47f5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p...
  - coliveira 6y ago
    The situation of pensions is that the USPS is required by a law created by republicans to pre-pay their retirement fund for the next 75 years, something that no company in the world does. Not only this, but the money they pay is being diverted to the general government accounts, so it is possible that in the future the pension money is not there anyway, if the government decide not to provide the money in the future. The law had two draconian results: the USPS has to operate in the red, and the government has additional revenue that facilitated the tax cuts proposed by republicans.

andrewlgood 6y ago

Because you don’t agree with his position. I bet when Bloomberg offers hundreds of millions of dollars to support green energy you suddenly feel great about billionaires working to save the planet.

quickthrowman 6y ago
Promoting alternative energy is not equal to dismantling a public service used by every single person in the US that would almost certainly be worse, or more expensive if privatized. I’ll take the bait and offer you my position on green energy. My employer performs alternative energy work, so that part would make me feel good, but I don’t have a strong left position on energy. I’m fine with nuclear, natural gas, wind, solar, and hydro for generating electricity. I believe reducing the amount of coal we use is generally a good thing. That about sums it up.