I don't want to subsidize mail for people in rural areas. If you do, feel free to donate for that cause.
I can't think of a good reason to subsidize mail. If people live where mail delivery is expensive, they should have to bear the cost. This would cause them to conserve their mail use. Instead of getting mail once a day, perhaps they should receive it once a week, or once a month. Maybe they could pick it up where they buy groceries. Maybe they could just use email or phone. Maybe they would get less junk mail. It's hard to tell how they would adapt if they had to pay market prices. But they would adapt and that's a good thing. It's not a good thing to pretend that delivery costs 40 cents when in reality it costs 40 dollars. And it is unjust to force people who chose to live in areas where it's efficient to deliver mail to subsidize people where it's not efficient.
Also, if subsidized rural mail service is something the taxpayers want to pay for, they could just as well subsidize private carriers.
In short, I don't see any good reason why the USPS should have a monopoly on mail service, any more than it should have a monopoly on email, or fax, or telephone, or TV or any other means of communication.
From Wikipedia[1]: Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".
Without this clause, Congress would not have the authority to establish Post Offices. But note the clause does not say anything about making postal service an exclusive government function. In fact the clause does not even mandate that Congress establish Post Offices, Congress merely has the power to do so. If Congress shuts down the Post Office, it would be perfectly Constitutional. The clause is definitely not a "reason for subsidizing rural mail delivery" anymore than Congress's power to Declare War is a reason to have a war.
I can't think of a good reason to subsidize mail. If people live where mail delivery is expensive, they should have to bear the cost. This would cause them to conserve their mail use. Instead of getting mail once a day, perhaps they should receive it once a week, or once a month. Maybe they could pick it up where they buy groceries. Maybe they could just use email or phone. Maybe they would get less junk mail. It's hard to tell how they would adapt if they had to pay market prices. But they would adapt and that's a good thing. It's not a good thing to pretend that delivery costs 40 cents when in reality it costs 40 dollars. And it is unjust to force people who chose to live in areas where it's efficient to deliver mail to subsidize people where it's not efficient.
Also, if subsidized rural mail service is something the taxpayers want to pay for, they could just as well subsidize private carriers.
In short, I don't see any good reason why the USPS should have a monopoly on mail service, any more than it should have a monopoly on email, or fax, or telephone, or TV or any other means of communication.