I'm not quite sure I get your argument about why dealing with other people's mail would be difficult? Using the post office's services is exactly 'other people dealing with your mail'.
(If there are any special laws that give the post office more rights than you can voluntarily give your friend or a business, those laws ought to be amended.)
You have an argument about time sensitivity. But I don't understand how you arrive at the frequency of daily? Why not weekly? Why not hourly?
For voting, weekly or even monthly would surely be enough. Election dates are known far enough in advance. Any additional time pressure is purely there by legislative fiat. (And we also already assume that people who vote in person can find their way to the polling station on their own. We don't argue for a government rickshaw to cart them there.)
> On that note, the government has to send mail to every citizen multiple times a year, they're going to have to pay private mailing services for it anyway... How much taxpayer money is actually being saved by privatizing it?
A few times a year is much less than the total volume of mail.
I was going to type out some philosophical arguments about hypotheticals and counterfactuals here. But no need for that. We can just look at the impact of postal privatisations in eg Europe.
In any case, what I'm arguing for would be a level playing field and the absence of political pressure.
See eg the whole argument about how 'the evil party has decreed that money must be set aside for known future obligations, and that is bad'. You only get that because the whole thing is politicized.
I'd say to abolish the universal service obligation and the postal monopoly. Let all providers compete on a level playing field.
The one thing not discussed is how does one hold third party providers to any standard. Right now, Fedex Ground is basically contractors 10 layers deep. They have no incentive to deliver anything correctly but bumrush packages out.
When it comes to legal mail it's a huge disaster waiting to happen if Fedex was supposed to deliver a jury summons and the delivery guy being paid dirt just chucked it out and now you are in jail on a bench warrant. Sure they'll just slap Fedex with a fine and you got unemployed in the mean time.
The other issue is security. Many apartment complexes and even neighborhoods nowadays have locked central mailrooms but they provide a key for a USPS worker to enter. Those keys are tied to a keychain for the route. Are buildings and individuals now supposed to give out keys to every fly by night contractor in existence that changes every day?
> The one thing not discussed is how does one hold third party providers to any standard.
Make them post a bond, if they want to do business with you. If your business is sufficiently important (like perhaps government letters might be), they'll post the bond.
How is your example with the jury summons different in the USPS world? How does the FedEx guy differ from the USPS guy?
> Are buildings and individuals now supposed to give out keys to every fly by night contractor in existence that changes every day?
No, why? The situation is basically the same that we already have for packages or very urgent mail. Look at what solutions are employed there.
In practice, you'd provide access to some trusted providers. A new market entrant would have to negotiate access, or arrange last mile services with an existing provider, or refuse to deliver to those areas etc.
(If there are any special laws that give the post office more rights than you can voluntarily give your friend or a business, those laws ought to be amended.)
You have an argument about time sensitivity. But I don't understand how you arrive at the frequency of daily? Why not weekly? Why not hourly?
For voting, weekly or even monthly would surely be enough. Election dates are known far enough in advance. Any additional time pressure is purely there by legislative fiat. (And we also already assume that people who vote in person can find their way to the polling station on their own. We don't argue for a government rickshaw to cart them there.)
> On that note, the government has to send mail to every citizen multiple times a year, they're going to have to pay private mailing services for it anyway... How much taxpayer money is actually being saved by privatizing it?
A few times a year is much less than the total volume of mail.
I was going to type out some philosophical arguments about hypotheticals and counterfactuals here. But no need for that. We can just look at the impact of postal privatisations in eg Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_service_privatization
In any case, what I'm arguing for would be a level playing field and the absence of political pressure.
See eg the whole argument about how 'the evil party has decreed that money must be set aside for known future obligations, and that is bad'. You only get that because the whole thing is politicized.
I'd say to abolish the universal service obligation and the postal monopoly. Let all providers compete on a level playing field.