Postal Monopolies & Forum Etiquette
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...
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.
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.
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.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
It still messes with my head that stamps don't cost .32 cents. That is how much they were when I started mailing thing regularly (when I was 17 or so) and I always think they should cost that much, messes with my head.
I believe I already told you I'm not going to argue with you about this. You are uninformed and ridiculous.
There is no prohibition against shipping from the mysterious USPS. Seriously, there's not. You need a hobby other than politics, it's not working for you.
You know in all the years I've been here I've never been sigged?
I'd rather have a conversation than argue, but whether or not you want to believe what I am saying is beside the point.
I'm sorry, wikipedia disputes this claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Universal_Serv...
Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads, which has been interpreted as a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. Accordingly, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established, absent Congress's consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has allowed an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.
Trying to make a point...whether you are right or wrong...does not become better expressed when sprinkled with cheapshots at the person you are responding to.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
I wish i knew that much about the post office. There's nothing uninformed about Giggan.
Libertarianism! Woooooooooooooo!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Universal_Serv...
Wikipedia is also, conversely, disputing its own claims:
Universal Service Obligation and monopoly status
Unbalanced scales.svg
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (October 2010)
This section contains information which may be of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter.
Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information. (October 2010)
This section only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject. Please help improve this article by adding more general information. (October 2010)
Ambox question.svg
The text in this article or section may be incoherent or very hard to understand, and should be reworded if the intended meaning can be determined. The talk page may have details. (October 2010)
Unreliable Source is unreliable.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Trying to make a point...whether you are right or wrong...does not become better expressed when sprinkled with cheapshots at the person you are responding to.
You are absolutely right, and I apologize. I shouldn't have made cheap shots. I'll respond tomorrow.
You know in all the years I've been here I've never been sigged?
isn't UPS and FedEx going to run the post office out of business in a couple years anyways?