Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!HARVISR.HARVARD.EDU!campbell%maynard.UUCP From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@HARVISR.HARVARD.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Re: Why the US Post Office exists Message-ID: <12228295291.23.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Tue, 5-Aug-86 01:52:14 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12228295291.23.MCGREW Posted: Tue Aug 5 01:52:14 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Aug-86 23:13:38 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 98 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu In article kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu writes: > From: Jim Aspnes > > The US Post Office exists, and (used to) lose money, because they > will deliver a first-class letter anywhere in the United States > for a nominal fee. No private mail company has ever claimed that > it could provide the same universality of service at the same > price as USPS. > > I think someone choosing to live outside the city should suffer >(and enjoy) all the consequences of doing so. I don't see any reason >why some customers should subsidize others. Or why taxpayers should >subsidize either group. Universal, inexpensive communications yield substantial benefits both economically, and politically. Economic example: Sears Roebuck drew most of its early growth from mail order business from rural customers. Political example: affordable mails allowed rural people to participate in political processes occurring hundreds (state capitol) or thousands (Washington) of miles away. "Subsidizing" those parts of the country where is is more expensive to operate than private industry would like winds up costing everyone less in the long run. The U.S. wouldn't be the world's premier agricultural region if rural settlement hadn't been encouraged the way it was in the 19th century. And despite all the self-righteous breast beating of capitalist ideologues, the single biggest reason for the wealth of the U.S. is not our economic system, but our agricultural and mineral wealth, tapped by rural pioneers. Without quoting from the original at length, let me recall that Keith objected to telephone monopolies. Please recall that when telephones first started, there WAS competition, and it DID NOT WORK. Businesses often had to have three, four, or five phones on each desk, because the private phone companies didn't interconnect. Recall also that with the technology of the 19th century it was impractical to allow more than one phone company to place wires on telephone poles in most areas. They needed an actual pair between each subscriber and the central office, and the wires were much larger then than they are now. Telephones did not become successful, and never would have, until a regulated monopoly was established with the charter of providing universal service. It is also important to note that telephone poles are located on public property (the streets), which is "owned" (controlled) by local governments. Thus, the local government should be allowed to distribute access to the poles as they see fit. If the people don't like it, they can vote in new local officials. > There are some things that must be provided by a just society, > > There is no such entity as 'society'... [more objectivist blather > follows] Of course there is such an entity as 'society'. Just because it cannot be precisely defined does not mean that it doesn't exist. Does "your neighborhood" exist? Does the "middle class" exist? Does "religion" exist? None of these can be exactly defined, yet they all exist. Here's the dictionary definition most relevant to this discussion: "A group of human beings broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture." Of course there are many overlapping societies in which one may be said to be a member; I am a member of the "societies" of the town of Maynard, the state of Massachusetts, the Greater Boston area, the American northeast, the American middle class, and "western" society in general. Each of these societies provides me with different benefits. My town provides me with an educational system for my children, police protection, roads, and yes, a cable TV monopoly. Western society provides me with legal traditions, literature, religious institutions, international law, and so on. It's sophomoric to claim that society doesn't exist. Now, many objectivists and libertarians like to moan and groan about how society has no right to "pick my pocket", or "force me to do something". Balderdash. You are a member of any number societies by virtue of being born and raised by them. If you don't like it, fine, go live on a mountaintop and eat wild hickory nuts. But if you expect to be able to participate in the advantages that society provides -- culture, economic activity, safety, medicine -- none of which you can provide all by yourself -- then you must also be willing to contribute your share to society. I was once an objectivist myself -- in high school. I grew out of it, and most other objectivists I've known have, too. Objectivism (and its cousin, libertarianism) are smugly self-satisfying -- just the ticket for young people who are still struggling with the "leaving the nest" syndrome and identity construction of adolescence. But they cannot speak to the larger problems of human society one must face as a fully functioning member of human civilization. -- "There are two kinds of science: physics, and stamp collecting." Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846 -------