For years I co-ran an ebay business w my father. We used the post office everyday to send packages. We never had a problem, not once.
You guys are wrong about the post office.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:For years I co-ran an ebay business w my father. We used the post office everyday to send packages. We never had a problem, not once. You guys are wrong about the post office.
"Wrong" in what way, exactly?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
For years I co-ran an ebay business w my father. We used the post office everyday to send packages. We never had a problem, not once. You guys are wrong about the post office.
You ought to know proof by assertion doesn't do much in the way of convincing anyone of anything on this site, especially when it flies in the face of reality. Why don't you take up LS on his offer and debate him here?
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7925/150565.aspx
@ Epicurus, of course if you didn't have problems, noone else would?
Over the last 4 years I've sold and bought plenty of things off ebay. I've shipped via USPS almost everytime. I've lost a total of $400 worth of merchandise.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I did not create this thread. I made this post in another thread, and somehow THIS happened.
I would like to ask the mods (?) to NOT create threads for me....? I guess... is what must have happened....
cuz I didn't create this thread
(And I'm done "debating" LS. How do you debate "you're wrong because you're wrong?")
Epicurus, I don't know if this means you don't want to talk about the post office anymore.
In case you do, what if I said that the problem with the post office is not that a letter won't get delivered to the right place by the post office. The problem is that they are funded by taxpayer dollars, have no bottom line to meet, have no reason to be efficient, and therefore have lost billions of dollars in the past few years.
Just because you only pay 30 some-odd cents for a stamp to send a letter, does not mean that this is the full cost of the letter being sent. The post office simply operates at a loss and then receives funding from taxpayers to make up the difference.
I have no problems discussing it. BUt I did not, and would not create such a thread. I posted that comment in another thread and SOMEONE (thta was not me) did THIS. If I would have created a thread to discuss the Post Office, it would not have been titled "I love the state post office." That's just someone subversively trying to make me look like a starry eyed idealist. And I DON"T appreciate it.
In case you do, what if I said that the problem with the post office is not that a letter won't get delivered to the right place by the post office. The problem is that they are funded by taxpayer dollars, have no bottom line to meet, have no reason to be efficient, and therefore have lost billions of dollars in the past few years
That's a different argument. And I have no data to prove whether the PO is profitable or not. It probably has lost money... but I doubt it's in the billions in just "the last couple years.".
That is not what I suggested. I said that people are wrong when they say the USPS is wracked with problems in shipment. I have sent over $100k worth of merchandise with it (packages, not letters) and have not lost one, once. So, in my experience, the PO is not "terribly inneficient."
ANd I'm not saying you're lying Liberty, but I just don't see how that's possible. I never even get delivery confirmation, and have not lost anything, not once.
I think someone at your local PO may be "losing" your stuff deliberately.
Here's the losses on the USPS: $8.5 Billion for the most recent fiscal year. http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/12/news/economy/postal_service/index.htm
Also, here's just one page of many that list the numerous complains with the USPS and disapearing packages: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/delivery/usps_lost_mail.html
The real problem with packages vanishing or not is that the USPS has a virtual monopoly on certain kinds of mail. If the USPS screws up, what are you going to go to? UPS? FedEx? I don't think they handle letters and small mail. The USPS, as a public monopoly, has no incentive to quality or efficiency, besides constituents complaining to their reps. I actually had to mail a grant application yesterday and the whole process took me 30 minutes to get the necessary forms, fill them out, wait in line, etc. It's grossly inefficient.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I have sent over $100k worth of merchandise with it (packages, not letters) and have not lost one, once. So, in my experience, the PO is not "terribly inneficient [sic]."
It depends on one's standard(s) for efficiency, doesn't it? ;)
If your standard for efficiency is "don't lose my packages", then I agree with you about the conclusion you draw from your experience. However, your standard for efficiency could instead be "service vs. price". Or it could be "profitability". Etc.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:And I have no data to prove whether the PO is profitable or not.
PO has a government monopoly on most of its services, so even if it were profitable (which it is not), that wouldn't tell us much about how productive or efficient their services really are.
Autolykos:However, your standard for efficiency could instead be "service vs. price". Or it could be "profitability". Etc.
In a voluntary/competitive market.
Right. My point was simply to show that one can use different standards for "efficiency" and arrive at different conclusions.
I gotta say Epicurus, sometimes you say things that are worth your name sake, sometimes you disappoint me.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I did not create this thread. I made this post in another thread, and somehow THIS happened.
Your post and subsequent replies were split to a new thread because your post was O/T and took the last discussion offtopic. That last discussion was in fact a split from another thread, which was also hijacked to a new topic.
If your post office comment had any value to that other discussion, I would have left it there.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I would like to ask the mods (?) to NOT create threads for me....?
I think when I ask people to stay on topic in a thread, they stay on topic. If you don't want threads created, match your posts to the thread discussion already occurring.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:(And I'm done "debating" LS. How do you debate "you're wrong because you're wrong?")
Actually, I usually refute your posts with logic. As you don't employ logic, you seem to think you're being refuted "just because". You're welcome to maintain this delusion, however I don't think you're able to support it.
And with regards to debating you, your knowledge of the subject matter, specifically Austrian economics, and Austro-libertarianism is very poor. You've made almost no progress in your understanding in the last several months, despite hundreds and hundreds of posts made to you, trying to better explain the very positions you have not developed an intuition for.
No offense, but there are simply better uses of my time. I imagine others are coming to the same realization.
If your post office comment had any value to that other discussion, I would have left it there. But it looked like your typical drive by style of trying to be clever with no regard for others.
Im actually not surprised it was you at all LS. In fact, Im more than not surprised, I knew it. You're predictable.
Here's the thing. Did you assume I WANTED to discuss the merits of the PO? I'm sorry if my post was OT... delete it. Don't subversively try to mock me, as you clearly did here. But of course, I think I may be expecting too much
Then delete it. Don't mock me by creating a thread entitled "I love the state post office." Have some class...
Actually, I usually refute your posts with logic. As you don't understand or employ logic, you seem to think you're being refuted "just because", however anyone who understands reason can tell that you're not able to support your arguments and rely on fallacies and arbitrary opinions.
Ya, Im sure you think you do. But "no" or "you're wrong" or "if you weren't so ignorant you would agree with me" are not solid logical refutations. Eusuric on the other hand does. And I give him credit for that.
Predictable.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Here's the thing. Did you assume I WANTED to discuss the merits of the PO? I'm sorry if my post was OT... delete it. Don't subversively try to mock me, as you clearly did here. But of course, I think I may be expecting too much
In your world, you're aren't responsible for your actions. I don't live in your world. You made an OT post, knowing full well you were. I preserved the conversation it started in a new thread. You are expecting too much if you think I am going to clean up after you.
As far as subversively mocking you, what is subversive? You're welcome to request a name change to the thread. Melodrama however doesn't capture my interest.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Then delete it. Don't mock me by creating a thread entitled "I love the state post office." Have some class...
Don't confuse wit with a lack of class. And if you don't want to be mocked, and you want to be treated with more dignity, don't thread crap. Very simple.
Is this (ad hominem) one of your "solid logical refutations?"
I'm perfectly willing to take responsiblity for my actions. And I am sure if you search my posts I give credit where credit is due, and admit my mistakes. I pride myself on that.
If you were "openly mocking" me, you would have pointed out that YOU were the one to start this thread. And you would have given it a respectable title. I don't love the PO. I merely pointed out that people were wrong when they called it terribly inefficient.
Whatever tho, I won't discuss it any further. You keep believing about yourself whatever you want. I mean, only profits matter... right? You certainly live up to that.
Back, somewhat, on topic; what's everybody's thoughts on The Postman? Do you find message delivery as important to societies as the producers of that movie did?
Well if the post office is such a wonderful system of efficiency then why guard it from competition? Why can't an average individual open up a letter delivery service which competes with the USPS? You like the postal service. Wonderful. I say continue with what economic choices make you happy. The choices of others, specifically the desire to utilize other services which are currently being barred, are no less valuable.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I'm not sure that you are barred from opening your own letter/package delivery service. In fact, to the best of my knowledge you are perfectly capable of doing just that, if you can make it profitable. I see no reason to gaurd message delivery from competition, and in fact see that as dangerous. I, much as the producers of the Postman movie, see information exchange as one of the foundations of a strong society, much like protection of trade routes, and contract enforcement.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I'm not sure that you are barred from opening your own letter/package delivery service. In fact, to the best of my knowledge you are perfectly capable of doing just that, if you can make it profitable.
Lysander Spooner tried it. And see this.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I see no reason to gaurd message delivery from competition, and in fact see that as dangerous.
I'll refer you again to the Private Express Statutes. :P
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:I, much as the producers of the Postman movie, see information exchange as one of the foundations of a strong society, much like protection of trade routes, and contract enforcement.
I agree with you. Of course, governments tend to view information as something that needs to be controlled.
wow 1792. I wonder what the reasoning is behind that.
I read a lot. I buy a lot of books used on Amazon and get this shipped by USPS (U.S. Postal Service). I have only had a problem once (it took about two weeks to get Garrison's Time and Money). That doesn't mean that the USPS isn't in debt.
Epicurus, the problem is not that the USA post office is good or bad in doing what they do, the problem is that
A) they are a forced monopolist, made such through coercion
B) since no one else can do what they do we can not know if someone can be better than them or not
there could exist two arguments for preferring them to be the only one to do what they already do:
1. they somehow have got moral superiority over what they do, which would mean that what they do is always good (i.e. always preferable to the alternative of someone else doing it) no matter whether they are efficient or not
2. they are relatively more efficient then others
this brings two questions: how could they be moral superior? if they really were relatively more efficient why do they need to force everyone else out of such a business using coercion? if you manage to answer yourself these two questions, you will understand what the problem is.
"I, much as the producers of the Postman movie, see information exchange as one of the foundations of a strong society, much like protection of trade routes, and contract enforcement."
If I steal your money to buy myself the copy-print of mini Human Action would you have something against me? If you do - this destroys your argument.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:wow 1792. I wonder what the reasoning is behind that.
The whole thing about banning the state postal service is not really because the postal service is always inefficient... we want the postal service to be privatized because a private company can be just as efficient as the postal postal service we have now, in fact, it can even more efficient than the state postal service... in other words, why does part of our taxes go to the state postal service if a private service can be just as, if not even more, efficient? thats just a waste of money and it is an unnecessary public service...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
/facepalm
If I steal your money to invest in the market, would you have something against me? If so, you just destroyed all capitalist arguments.
(Or not, because that's just assinine)
EDIT: Izzy, I completely agree. (Government) monopoly on (anything) postal service is really just... incoherent....
Well it seems a bit obvious to me that everyone's understanding as it is on the mises.org board is that socialism = statism(therefore taxes and regulations,etc.). and capitalism = no government or coercive force involved at all
Everyone's just gonna keep talking past each other whenever you bring something up Epicurus until that's cleared up.
Believe me, I kno
auctionguy10:Well it seems a bit obvious to me that everyone's understanding as it is on the mises.org board is that socialism = statism(therefore taxes and regulations,etc.). and capitalism = no government or coercive force involved at all Everyone's just gonna keep talking past each other whenever you bring something up Epicurus until that's cleared up.
well, I understand this writing of yours
as an argument for coercion against someones property if it is done in order to exchange information. that is you make an argument that thou shall steal if what is stolen is used in the exchange in information, or itself is information. you did not specify in this exact writing who is allowed to perform thou shall steal, so this means it includes everybody. that is why I asked you will you have any objections if I steal your money to buy myself Human Action (which I believe we can qualify as information). if you write that thou shall steal should be performed only for the purpose of facilitating information and the sole performer of this action should be the government, I'd say to you that this is not moral, but arbitrary. and I can elaborate on this, if you want me to. so, let's stick to my original question - will you have anything against me if I steal your money to buy myself Human Action? If you say "I do" this means that you are not coherent with what you have originally proposed as a preferable human behavior. first you say thou shall steal, and then when I do steal you say that what I did is wrong and you want your money back. if you say "I don't" this means that no conflict will emerge if I steal your money because after all what I did was morally right, according to your ethics. (there is another problem with your proposition which is much more fundamental, but it is not for this theme)
"If I steal your money to invest in the market, would you have something against me? If so, you just destroyed all capitalist arguments."
Did I write anything that can be read as "thou shall steal if he invests it in the market"? No. Does capitalism mean or propose that stealing is allowed if what you have taken away from somebody else is invested in the market - NO. Why then did you write this - I don't know. The argument for capitalism is not that stealing is morally right if you invest what you have stolen. I believe that you are in a grave error.
Well the full extent of capitalism is not expressed unless there is anarchy... Rothbard believed this and his quote is my sig...
"capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism..."
A society that has government can take part in some capitalistic ideals but that doesnt mean that they are pure capitalistic because a pure capitalistic society is a society without public service...
It is quite easy to arrive to the conclusion that the full extent of capitalism can be only if no government exists, because government steals away resources, and this act of it distorts prices and relative prices. But this is not what this current theme is about. I suppose that neither you, nor I are allowed to spam. I am sorry if this is what I have just done.
I would also be glad if the author answers the questions I posted in my first post on the theme.
Well I meant that post as an invitation for you to define your own terms of what socialism means to you- since we're not speaking the same language here. From what I've read from you before, you're not a statist- and you think capitalism and statism can go hand in hand just like socialism and government can go hand in hand. But from the definitions on this board- capitalism and statism are opposites so whenever the state is involved capitalism is "reduced" to a degree..
It is easy to arrive at this conclusion, if that is the conclusion you were seeking in the first place. The problem is that it is entirely ahistorical. In reality wealth translates to power, and power seeks to protect itself, by any means necessary. It is no coincedence that the rise of capitalism went hand-in-hand with the consolidation of the state. It is in the ownership "class" interest to place laws of control and restriction on the "untamed masses" in order to gaurd their own position in society.
I kind of did, indirectly. But I don't feel I have to, as I am not the author of this thread, and I do not "love" the USPS.
Well I meant that post as an invitation for you to define your own terms of what socialism means to you- since we're not speaking the same language here.
You still, perhaps, won't understand it. What socialism is to me is the full expression of democracy (lower case d; "people power"). It means you can no more tell me what clothes I can wear, or drugs I can do, etc, because you're the government, than you can because you "own" the place I find myself having to work at. It means worker control (and by worker that doesn't simply mean laborer, as you think of it. It means the people who actually do the producing, not merely investing [tho some investors are workers, as that is their job they recieve a salary for) over the workplace.
On the show; Undercover Boss (great show btw) the CEO of Johnny Rockets, after his week on the floor, said that NO executive will be hired without going through that same experience he did.... that's socialism.
There was a guy recently in Seattle (I think, I'll have to find the article) who gave the factory his workers (tho he will remain on as CEO)... that's socialism.
The USSR, and other such failed experiments, are regarded by me, and much of the libertarian left, as state-capitalism; where the state is owner of all things, and runs itself much as any other capitalist enterprise would.
So when you mention the workplace as an area that you just happen to "find yourself having to work at"- you don't consider it a voluntary agreement?(thats what is implied so please clarify)
Like if I said to you "Hey man do you wanna do some heavy lifting to move some stuff from my grandmother's house to my house? I'll give you $50- but please dress appropriately"
Would you consider it that I had no right in telling you to dress appropriately? but you have every right to take the $50 that I offered?
Or what if I wanted to hire a maid and every time she came to my house she dressed real skimpy, and if I have kids in my house I tell her hey can you NOT dress that way coming into my house. Would an appropriate response from her be "You have no right to tell me what clothes I can wear just because you "own" the place I find myself having to work at. Hell, you should give this house to me since I clean it up 5 days out the week"
If i'm misunderstanding then please go ahead and clarify.
So socialism means that workers must either be hired unconditionally or not at all, and no one can own stock in a company they don't work for? I've never seen it defined that way before.
Epicurus, you do not what you are talking about. First you spam your own thread. Second you do not answer the points I have made. Third what you write has nothing to do with what it actually is. For the moment I do not see why should I waste my time answering you anymore, as there are more of my questions pending unanswered.
Speaking of the USPS, I sent three big boxes of DVDs to my house for winter break and received only two of them. Goodbye to $200-worth of movies.