4 ms·

USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana where it would be infeasible for them to put it on their route.

USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana where it would be infeasible for them to put it on their route. While USPS guarantees mail to small, forgotten areas.

robomartin 14y ago
> USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana Who cares? Really. You are talking about keeping alive an organization that is now beyond obsolete just because people choose to live in these places? It's their choice. Their problem. Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way? I don't have any problem with people living in the middle of a desert if they want to. Or 3,000 feet up a mountain in a cabin that is only reachable via helicopter and has no roads in or out. That's fine. As far as I am concerned, you are free to do as you wish and live wherever you want to. That said, it is YOUR responsibility to live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life. If this means that you have to drive twenty miles to pick-up your mail once a week, or pay for a helicopter to deliver mail and supplies, so be it. Your choice. You don't have to live there. Don't make it my responsibility. It isn't.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  Interesting theory. Why don't we take it to its logical conclusion and remove all services for anyone who doesn't live in Washington, DC?
  - robomartin 14y ago
    How can that possibly be a logical conclusion? Are you just being funny?
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      Your argument is that providing government services to outlying regions isn't justified because those people "chose to live there". You (presumably) chose to live somewhere other than Washington D.C. The exact same argument applies.
      - cookiecaper 14y ago
        His argument is that we shouldn't feel obliged to deliver mail to residences so far out of the way that said delivery is cost prohibitive, not that "no government services should be provided to anyone not in Washington DC". Sounds reasonable to me. The specifics of "cost prohibitive" and "out of the way" can be refined to prevent ideologically-charged, unrealistic reductions like yours.
        Turing_Machine 14y ago
        "His argument is that we shouldn't feel obliged to deliver mail to residences so far out of the way that said delivery is cost prohibitive" Define "cost prohibitive". Costs exceed revenue for that particular piece? If so, I can guarantee you that the delivery radius is a lot smaller than you (and he) appear to think that it is. There's a reason why essentially every country adopted a flat-rate fee for regular mail way back in the 19th century.
      - robomartin 14y ago
        How can I possibly argue with that kind of logic?
- therobot24 14y ago
  where do you draw the line? Today it's infeasible for po-dunk-town, Montana, tomorrow it's anywhere more than 5 miles from the nearest city. Yes that's hyperbole, but it illustrates the point that what's infeasible is relative to the time. I'm sure the pony express wasn't exactly feasible, but it was still necessary. "Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way?" What can be more selfish - the fact that you only care about the situation you're in, or the fact that you'd leave others out to dry because you feel like you're paying for something you wouldn't do. Those who live in po-dunk-town, Montana are part of the US just as you are, and frankly deserve to have their mail delivered as well.

robomartin 14y ago

> USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana Who cares? Really. You are talking about keeping alive an organization that is now beyond obsolete just because people choose to live in these places? It's their choice. Their problem. Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way? I don't have any problem with people living in the middle of a desert if they want to. Or 3,000 feet up a mountain in a cabin that is only reachable via helicopter and has no roads in or out. That's fine. As far as I am concerned, you are free to do as you wish and live wherever you want to. That said, it is YOUR responsibility to live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life. If this means that you have to drive twenty miles to pick-up your mail once a week, or pay for a helicopter to deliver mail and supplies, so be it. Your choice. You don't have to live there. Don't make it my responsibility. It isn't.

Turing_Machine 14y ago
Interesting theory. Why don't we take it to its logical conclusion and remove all services for anyone who doesn't live in Washington, DC?
- robomartin 14y ago
  How can that possibly be a logical conclusion? Are you just being funny?
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    Your argument is that providing government services to outlying regions isn't justified because those people "chose to live there". You (presumably) chose to live somewhere other than Washington D.C. The exact same argument applies.
    - cookiecaper 14y ago
      His argument is that we shouldn't feel obliged to deliver mail to residences so far out of the way that said delivery is cost prohibitive, not that "no government services should be provided to anyone not in Washington DC". Sounds reasonable to me. The specifics of "cost prohibitive" and "out of the way" can be refined to prevent ideologically-charged, unrealistic reductions like yours.
      - Turing_Machine 14y ago
        "His argument is that we shouldn't feel obliged to deliver mail to residences so far out of the way that said delivery is cost prohibitive" Define "cost prohibitive". Costs exceed revenue for that particular piece? If so, I can guarantee you that the delivery radius is a lot smaller than you (and he) appear to think that it is. There's a reason why essentially every country adopted a flat-rate fee for regular mail way back in the 19th century.
    - robomartin 14y ago
      How can I possibly argue with that kind of logic?
therobot24 14y ago
where do you draw the line? Today it's infeasible for po-dunk-town, Montana, tomorrow it's anywhere more than 5 miles from the nearest city. Yes that's hyperbole, but it illustrates the point that what's infeasible is relative to the time. I'm sure the pony express wasn't exactly feasible, but it was still necessary. "Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way?" What can be more selfish - the fact that you only care about the situation you're in, or the fact that you'd leave others out to dry because you feel like you're paying for something you wouldn't do. Those who live in po-dunk-town, Montana are part of the US just as you are, and frankly deserve to have their mail delivered as well.