Skip to main content

Postal Monopolies & Forum Etiquette

After a good, long run, we have decided to close our forums in an effort to refocus attention to other sections of the site. Fortunately for you all, we're living in a time where discussion of a favorite topic now has a lot of homes. So we encourage you all to bring your ravenous love for discussion to Chuck's official Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram. And, as always, you can still post comments on all News updates. Thank you for your loyalty and passion over the years. These changes will happen June 1.

This is a coerced subtopic split from the secret santer thread:

http://chuckpalahniuk.net/forum/1000026/ho-ho-ho-merry-cultie-christmas-...

^Links to the comment in evidence.

A side conversation developing in a secret santa thread is ostracized and booed by the masses on the sidelines of the dialogue. So at what point should I have sub-threaded? Or other ppl? I make no claim to understand forum etiquette.

Also, in response to the comments that followed, since they seem to not want to be continued there...

MiggityMcWilly wrote:

Dude, seriously... if you're going to quote the constitution:

Article 1.8 doesn't say "to set up a post office" it says to ESTABLISH a post office. That doesn't mean they decided to write in their right to build a building and stick a sign outside the door, that means they reserved the right for the federal goverment to regulate post. You're a free thinker, be smart.

giggan wrote:

I don't get the point of the distinction.

That you don't get the distinction is enough for me to not argue this point with you any more.

I am saying that I do not understand what you are claiming is the distinction between 'establish' (which you emphasized) and 'set up' (which I paraphrased the 'establishment' clause re:post as doing.

Granting a power to establish a postal service is in no way a granting of power to prohibit competition. If your claim is that they are 'regulating' by prohibiting competition, then you are redefining the traditional meaning of 'regulate'.

That being said, I don't see where the ability to establish a service grants the power to 'regulate' (whatever that may mean in practice).

For example, you have capital and time to invest. You have the power to open a restaurant. You do not have the power to 'regulate' restaurants, but can work as a consumer advocate, to regulate through market mechanisms, the only mechanisms that work.

Quote:
Quote:
DHL and UPS and FedEx all take letters, they just charge you way more than than USPS. Free commerce and all... thought you libertarians were all into that.

It's not free commerce, they are legally prohibited from charging under a dollar to ship something.

Do you understand why I would differentiate regulate and prohibit? They have different meanings.