The Post Office In Light of Freedom of the Press

I used to assume the sort of standard libertarian view of the Post Office, but now I think that view has errors in it.

So, I think both Republicans and Democrats must not like the Post Office very much. The Republicans view it similarly as the libertarians do- it's doing a job private companies should do. And, regardless of whatever the Democrats say they think of it, at least some of them must be against it, for the Post Office is required to fund its retirement system in a way that no other organization is forced to. They are so hamstrung that their finances look silly at a cursory glance, which furthers the impression that a private company could do better.

But maybe, just maybe the Post Office is there for an explicit reason- to get whatever you had to freedom to print to other people.

If we look on-line, where much of the speech that would have been mailed to people now lives, we see companies have proven very susceptible to deplatforming. It is becoming somewhat obvious that companies may actually be a weak point in a distribution system. They at once want to be a platform, yet at the same time are less trustworthy than the United States Post Office, which, to my knowledge, continues to serve Alex Jones, assuming he has anything he needs to mail.

So, I think we probably ought to reconsider the Post Office. Perhaps an expansion, such as what is discussed here, is needed:



Reform is likely needed- but in no small part it is reform of these restrictive rules that they have had to operate under, and look at reducing stamp prices, so that the option remains viable for the people who need it most. The poor and those being shut out other ways of distributing speech must have options.