6 ms·

It's less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of whether service would exist at all. If serving small rural communities isn't profitable, why would a compa

It's less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of whether service would exist at all. If serving small rural communities isn't profitable, why would a company like UPS or FedEx choose to do it? You'd need to compel them with regulation, they aren't charities. If each state did postal service piecemeal you'd have all sorts of nightmare state-specific pricing, size regulations, delivery schedules, etc. Nobody would benefit from that. Each state would also have to bargain individually with foreign nations about international shipping.

eru 6y ago
> It's less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of whether service would exist at all. If serving small rural communities isn't profitable, why would a company like UPS or FedEx choose to do it? You'd need to compel them with regulation, they aren't charities. To an extent, companies would charge higher prices for performing services that cost more. > If each state did postal service piecemeal you'd have all sorts of nightmare state-specific pricing, size regulations, delivery schedules, etc. Nobody would benefit from that. Each state would also have to bargain individually with foreign nations about international shipping. Why? They could still subscribe to common standards. Just like different paper mills still produce standard sized paper. Similar for international shipping. Though individual bargaining might be an advantage, too.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  > To an extent, companies would charge higher prices for performing services that cost more. Out of interest what’s your opinion on roads? City dwellers almost certainly subsidise the construction of roads they may never need to use, and the US doesn’t pull toll gates on their roads to makes sure they’re charging higher prices for services that cost more. Any American (or indeed anyone in the US) can use any road for free, as much as they want, for only the cost of their taxes. Assuming they even paid any.
  - eru 6y ago
    Same as for postal service. Privatize the roads as well. Especially with modern technology for collecting tolls, privatised roads are more feasible than ever. In practice, I would expect roads to be financed by a mixture of pay-for-use and local businesses. Even without privatized roads, it can be useful to charge road users. Here in Singapore we have Electronic Road Pricing in some parts of the city to keep congestion down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing It works very well. Jams are almost unheard of. London has a watered down copy of our system.
    - learc83 6y ago
      None of that addresses how you build the road in the first place without government assistance (or expand existing roads). Private companies can’t compel property owners to sell land.
      - eru 6y ago
        History provides many great examples. Your particular concern also comes up in the building of canals or railroads. So see eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_s... But also have a look specifically at roads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust
        learc83 6y ago
        You need to look a little more carefully into the history of railroads in Great Britain. An act of parliament was required to build most of them. And they approved the routes over the objections of local landowners. In fact many local landowners hired thugs to harass the surveyors and builders. Without government power forcing the sale of land none of those early railroads would have been built. The same thing applies to canal building in the 18th century. Government authority was used to force landowners to allow canals to be built. Again with turnpike trusts, acts of parliament were required to establish each one, and they were generally financed by community bonds. There has never been a history of private entities building a large, road or rail network through land owned by many different private owners without using the power of government to force the landowners to cooperate.

eru 6y ago

> It's less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of whether service would exist at all. If serving small rural communities isn't profitable, why would a company like UPS or FedEx choose to do it? You'd need to compel them with regulation, they aren't charities. To an extent, companies would charge higher prices for performing services that cost more. > If each state did postal service piecemeal you'd have all sorts of nightmare state-specific pricing, size regulations, delivery schedules, etc. Nobody would benefit from that. Each state would also have to bargain individually with foreign nations about international shipping. Why? They could still subscribe to common standards. Just like different paper mills still produce standard sized paper. Similar for international shipping. Though individual bargaining might be an advantage, too.

avianlyric 6y ago
> To an extent, companies would charge higher prices for performing services that cost more. Out of interest what’s your opinion on roads? City dwellers almost certainly subsidise the construction of roads they may never need to use, and the US doesn’t pull toll gates on their roads to makes sure they’re charging higher prices for services that cost more. Any American (or indeed anyone in the US) can use any road for free, as much as they want, for only the cost of their taxes. Assuming they even paid any.
- eru 6y ago
  Same as for postal service. Privatize the roads as well. Especially with modern technology for collecting tolls, privatised roads are more feasible than ever. In practice, I would expect roads to be financed by a mixture of pay-for-use and local businesses. Even without privatized roads, it can be useful to charge road users. Here in Singapore we have Electronic Road Pricing in some parts of the city to keep congestion down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing It works very well. Jams are almost unheard of. London has a watered down copy of our system.
  - learc83 6y ago
    None of that addresses how you build the road in the first place without government assistance (or expand existing roads). Private companies can’t compel property owners to sell land.
    - eru 6y ago
      History provides many great examples. Your particular concern also comes up in the building of canals or railroads. So see eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_s... But also have a look specifically at roads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust
      - learc83 6y ago
        You need to look a little more carefully into the history of railroads in Great Britain. An act of parliament was required to build most of them. And they approved the routes over the objections of local landowners. In fact many local landowners hired thugs to harass the surveyors and builders. Without government power forcing the sale of land none of those early railroads would have been built. The same thing applies to canal building in the 18th century. Government authority was used to force landowners to allow canals to be built. Again with turnpike trusts, acts of parliament were required to establish each one, and they were generally financed by community bonds. There has never been a history of private entities building a large, road or rail network through land owned by many different private owners without using the power of government to force the landowners to cooperate.