Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

A competitive system integrated with the private sector could match the wasteful and inefficient system of pricing and services of a government postal service.As of right now, I can't prove that because it's never been allowed. How convenient. You're able to make claims about things that have never been allowed but you don;t have to back them up because they've never been allowed.Bullcrap.Make your argument. HOW does the private sector competitive system match the public one? If you can't explain HOW, you don't get to say it WILL.Start with telling me how two different competing businesses, who need to charge enough to cover their expenses AND turn a reasonable profit on top of it, and need to establish delivery infrastructures sufficient to cover the entire nation the way the postal service does now, do that while only having some fraction of the national population as their own customer base without charging that fraction more money for postage than the postal service charges their customers now.This is basic math. Costs = CIncome/customer = ITotal revenue = I x # of customers.For the sake of simplicity we'll say the entire mail-delivering nation of customers = 1,000,000 people.Postal service needs 1,000,000 x I = C to break even. They're currently not even doing that with the rates they charge.Let's say there are only 2 private companies that take over and compete for this business when we privatize, and we ABOLISH the postal service so they don't even have to compete with them too, just each other. And they're really well matched competitors scrapping it out and holding about half the customer base each. Then each private company needs500,000 x I = C to break even.Now, either make an argument for how the private companies costs to establish a national postal delivery infrastructure could be made  less than HALF  the postal service, or you have to adjust the other variable. Increased prices. If you can't do that, you have no argument. You don't get to declare you're immune from having to support your position because it hasn't been tried. If you can't make an argument supporting a claim you don't make the claim in the first place. As noted before, the Postal Service is a chartered, fully operated and owned corporation by the Federal Government No, as you claimed  before.The Supreme Court (UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE v. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES) the Constitution, and the federal statutes of the United States on the other hand have a different opinion. The postal service is explicitly not a government owned corporation. It is an independent establishment of the United States Government. From the Supreme Court case in question: "However, the other considerations the Court has discussed lead to the conclusion that, absent an express congressional statement that the Postal Service can be sued for antitrust violations despite its status as an independent establishment of the Government, the PRA does not subject the Postal Service to antitrust liability. This conclusion is consistent with the nationwide, public responsibilities of the Postal Service, which has different goals from private corporations, the most important being that it does not seek profits, §3621. It also has broader obligations, including the provision of universal mail delivery and free mail delivery to certain classes of persons, §§3201-3405, and, most recently, increased public responsibilities related to national security. Finally, the Postal Service has many powers more characteristic of Government than of private enterprise, including its state-conferred monopoly on mail delivery, §601 et seq., and the powers of eminent domain and to conclude international postal agreements, §§401, 407. " The. Postal. Service. Is. Not. A. Business.