Quote:
Originally Posted by TVCasualty  Privatizing the PO would make it far easier to open mail. The private carriers can legally open anything you pay them to ship at any time with no warrant. Even with Bush's signing statement, it's still much harder to open USPS mail than to open privately-shipped mail. |
You did not think this one through friend
Firstly, there are major differences. One, right now you are forcibly prevented from having any choice. Let's say, for example, that the government regulations preventing any competition to the post office were not in existence. You have 5 different, competing, letter-delivery companies - all with different policies.
As they need customers to maintain their existence, they are forced to cater to the demand of customer's needs. If you object to a company opening your mail, you won't do buisness with them. Other companies would cater to the demands of customers who want their mail unopened.
Now I imagine you're about to say "but how are you going to know that they didn't open your mail!?!?"
And i'd point out that even if it were impossible, that'd be no different than our situation today. Except that we lack any choice whatsoever. There would be a lot of different ways it could be found out. One would be the media - if they're good at anything, it's uncovering dirt. Another would to be watchful. If you recieve, or your recipient recieves, a package that showed signs of have being opened, you've got evidence. There would be plenty of other ways.
And then you'd sue the hell out of them for breach of contract. Or report the story to a watchdog from the media that would expose it on a national level. or report it to something similar to the Better Buisness Beaurau (sp?).
In any case, we'd be better off then we are now
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVCasualty There were instances of private security officers patrolling the streets of New Orleans after Katrina- a PRIVATE army carrying rifles patrolling streets of an American city! |
Is there something wrong with this? Or would you rather everyone be subject to the whims of lawless thugs on the streets? I certainly hope not. The govt had robbed the entire region of its ability to defend itself by confiscating their firearms, and at the same time left them without any defense. The army is a testament to the efficiency of the market, despite corrupt government.
During the times of the revolution, our entire army was comprised of citizen-militias, aka minutemen. That is why our constitution, though ignored, prohibits standing armies for more than two years at a time. Other than the fact that these people were getting paid by non-government sources, how is what they were doing different than the minutemen of the past or standard security forces which are hired by buisnesses worldwide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVCasualty Were they vetted? Could they shoot to kill? Arrest citizens? By whose authority? And who gave the authority to that authority? Where is this headed? |
The answer would be no different than if you carried a gun and asked what the law would permit you.