Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act
I wasn't sure if that was a joke or not. You lean more to the left, except for the economy, free-market, and cultural issues? So if you are right leaning on economic issues, and social issues... what does that leave out?
I apologize for jumping in here, but we're talking about the US Post Office? My understanding of USPS history, is that it was neither altruistic, nor progressive. The post office was created for purely national security reasons, and they have been extremely politically based up to this point.
First, it was a continuation of a prior system under colonizations. Second, it was because we needed to have open lines of communication to the rest of country. If Mexico attacked Texas, without an established form of communication, the entire state could be overthrown before the government knew about it.
It was not there for the welfare of the public, unless you count general protection of the country, in which case every ICBM is as much about altruism as the USPS.
Then it failed. And BTW, that was never a goal. Originally the General Post Master was actually in the line of succession from the president. Again, why do you think it was Postmaster "General", and appointed by the president? It was considered a national security position. Further, the USPS has constantly been a revolving door for political paybacks. It's routine for a president to appoint political beneficiaries to the board of directors at the USPS.
I haven't read every post up to this point, so I'm guessing on the context. I hope you are not citing USPS as an example of successful socialism from any perspective. USPS has been, and remains, a miserable failure. From poor service, to never reaching a profit. USPS has been so bad, that they even have competition in a market that is supposed to be a federally enforced monopoly.
If anything, the United States Postal Service, is a massive warning that government can't do anything right. What other company has ever increasing revenues, and yet has ever increasing deficits?
Actually I would still disagree. In fact I would suggest that it's nearly impossible for anything government does, to truly be altruistic.
Generally the public doesn't vote in favor of something, or push any specific view, unless they believe that they themselves will benefit from such a purpose. Many years ago, there was a huge controversy over taxation for the funding of a sport arena in my home town. Without question, those in favor cited either a self desire to go to games there, or that it would benefit them economically by attracting potential customers to the city.
Further, it is completely impossible for a politician to do anything "self-less". A politician never gives of himself to whatever policy he enacts. Instead he gives of others. He takes your money, and gives it out, under the guise of 'altruistic' purposes.
There is nothing "altruistic" about this, but this is what politics is about.
