3 ms·
The difference is that a postal service is rival + excludable. Most roads are (generally) non-rival and most people at least expect them to be non-excludable, b
by defertoreptar 6y ago
The difference is that a postal service is rival + excludable. Most roads are (generally) non-rival and most people at least expect them to be non-excludable, but as you mentioned, some use tolls.
When you have rival + excludable, it is straight forward to charge on an individual basis. This efficiently allocates resources and punishes abuses.
It's not as easy to efficiently do that with non- (or perhaps less-) excludable goods. Also, when a good is non-rival, there is much less worry about abusing the system. That makes subsidies and "everybody pay the same" easier to be seen as a fair enough system.
- zamadatix 6y agoThe above is your reasoning (or part of) why you would not like the US postal service to be partially subsidized not why it must not be partially subsidized or why we must all consider it A or B. A+B is still a valid legal option and can also be a logical conclusion by others with different arguments. It's a perfectly valid stance to hold though and certainly brings well thought points to the examples mentioned earlier.