Privatize the Postal Service, Amtrak, Airports, and More
Privatization isn't about cutting corners; it's about unleashing and leveraging the ingenuity and competitiveness of the private sector to deliver better services at lower costs.

It's the most wonderful time of the year, and Santa is done checking his list and deciding who's been naughty and nice. Of course, whenever he stops by the U.S. Capitol, he finds evidence of a lot of naughty fiscal irresponsibility that has given us a budget and government that overflow with inefficiency and waste. So my holiday wish is that, one way or another, we get some fiscal cheer by putting a few government-run programs under the privatization tree. Let's unwrap the possibilities!
When it comes to deliveries, Santa's sleigh reigns supreme. The U.S. Postal Service, on the other hand, is more like a lopsided toboggan pulled by one reindeer threatening to go on strike. Despite its monopoly on letters and mailboxes, it's running a tab bigger than a Black Friday shopping spree. In 2024 alone, the Postal Service lost $9.5 billion. Without changes, it's on track to lose another $80 billion in the coming decade. Even the Grinch would be shocked by that.
How did we get here? The government post office has some advantages—like sweetheart loans from the Department of Treasury—but this one still can't turn a profit. It's bogged down by inefficiencies and prohibitive union contracts that have eaten up around 75 percent of past budgets. That leaves little room for modernization or improvements. But it still had room for a multibillion-dollar taxpayer-funded program that was supposed to deliver 3,000 electric mail vehicles by now. Only 93 have rolled out.
Privatization could be the gift that saves the Postal Service. Under private ownership, we'd see competition drive down costs and spur innovation. Just look at Germany's Deutsche Post (aka DHL), a largely private entity delivering top-notch service. Or consider the United Kingdom's Royal Mail, privatized a decade ago and now operating with greater efficiency and customer satisfaction. Imagine a Postal Service that works as efficiently as Santa's elves on Christmas Eve. That's the magic of privatization.
Let's privatize Amtrak too. Despite being structured like a corporation, it's owned by the federal government and operates with chronic deficits. Taxpayers fork over more than $3 billion annually to keep it on the tracks, and in 2023 the company lost $150 per passenger on long-distance routes.
And what do we get for our money? If Santa's sleigh ran like Amtrak, Christmas would be delayed until sometime in March. Trains are late, service is underwhelming, and there's little hope for improvement. Much like the Postal Service, Amtrak's inefficiency is tied to union agreements that make it hard to reward high performers or hold poor performers accountable.
Japan offers a shining example of what privatization can do. In 1987, it split its national railways into six regional companies and one freight company, all privately owned. The result? Trains that run on time, efficient service, and satisfied passengers. Privatizing Amtrak could deliver the kind of rail service Americans dream of—without breaking the bank.
Ever felt like navigating an airport is the travel equivalent of untangling strings of Christmas lights? That's because most U.S. airports are government-owned. They're monopolies that don't entertain real competition or innovate in a responsive way. From runway expansions to terminal upgrades, decisions are often driven by politics rather than market demand.
Private ownership of more airports would introduce much-needed holiday spirit. With market competition, airports would have every incentive to improve amenities, reduce wait times, and optimize space. Look at London's Heathrow or airports in Frankfurt and Sydney. All have shown how private operations deliver superior service and financial performance.
Even partial privatization through public-private partnerships has worked wonders, boosting efficiency and capital investment. It might even make holiday travel—dare we say it—enjoyable. Imagine shorter Transportation Security Administration (TSA) lines, cozier waiting areas, and restaurants with food you want to eat and respectable cocktail and wine lists. Santa would surely approve.
Once we've tackled the Postal Service, Amtrak, and airports, there's plenty more to do. How about privatizing air traffic control? Or selling federal lands to local entities better equipped to manage them? The Tennessee Valley Authority could light up private investors' Christmas trees and become a lot better at serving its customers. All those excess federal buildings gathering dust could become valuable assets as other people's workshops (while putting money back in taxpayers' pockets).
Santa's workshop thrives on efficiency, and so should our government. Privatization isn't about cutting corners; it's about unleashing and leveraging the ingenuity and competitiveness of the private sector to deliver better services at lower costs. Countries around the world have embraced it with great success. Here's hoping for some of that same spirit here in America.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
it's about unleashing and leveraging the ingenuity and competitiveness of the private sector to deliver better services at lower costs.
No it isn't. It is about transferring a public monopoly into private hands at 10c on the dollar in order for ideologues to assert that the mere transfer of a public monopoly into private hands creates competition because reasons. Always.
Yes, the post office is a model of efficiency as is and should remain untouched by a profit motive.
Post office home delivery is not constitutional and it would be good to be abolish it - or leave those contracts to be negotiated by a local appointed postmaster as was the practice before 1890 or so.
Post offices ARE constitutional and are massively underutilized precisely because privatizing assholes want to sell the land and then force the govt to either pay rent to a private landlord - or shut down those federal offices and instead open up other federal offices in order to pay rent to other private landlords.
Post offices ARE constitutional and are massively underutilized precisely because privatizing assholes want to sell the land and then force the govt to either pay rent to a private landlord
Yes, people don’t go to the post office because someone wants the land to be sold.
WTF
JFuck's belt doesn't go through all of the loops.
The number of post offices peaked in 1900. Which is when free delivery to homes started. That is not a coincidence.
So no, you can't go to post offices when they no longer exist. Not to ask questions about what govt is doing or do ombudsman stuff. Not to send money to someone who isn't banked - or to cash a money order delivered through the mail if you're not banked. Not for the govt to open local offices without paying a private landlord rent.
This has been a fucking land privatizing and delivery featherbedding scam for over a century. It is never a surprise that that is exactly what libertarians (and especially the Reason crowd) want.
You said post offices were massively underutilized , not non existent.
...to assert that the mere transfer of a public monopoly into private hands creates competition...
Could anyone really argue otherwise? How could it not create competition?
> ...to assert that the mere transfer of a public monopoly into private hands creates competition...
Could anyone really argue otherwise? How could it not create competition?
Uhm... when the public monopoly is transferred to a private monopoly.
The public sector is protected by deadly threat (law). The private sector is chosen by popular demand, voting with dollars, which results in constant change based on the changing market conditions. It is NOT financed by "public profits", an oxymoron. If the public sector was better in any way, ever, it wouldn't need to use deadly threat to force it on us.
People risk their lives to escape from societies that "protect" them from the voluntary private market, from greedy capitalists. Why? Do they love being victimized? Are they ignorant? Stupid? THINK!
I like the proposals but privatizing the Post Office will arguably require a constitutional amendment. Or at least, some very, very carefully worded legislation.
Not even close. The Constitution says something about operating post offices and maintaining the post roads, not maintaining a monopoly on first class mail. It's amazing how few people who comment here can actually do reading comprehension or simple superficial research projects, even with the entire internet to help.
But will privatization bring a passenger train to Boise?
That would require actual demand.
Can we send you a bus and call it a train?
Could send the Bangbus and run a train within.
America needs to be more like the socialist United Kingdom or Germany ... er, um ... except for the parts that they privatized which turn out to be embarrassing to American progressive socialists, I mean.
It would help if home delivery letter rates better reflected actual cost. Delivery costs 73¢, whether you're mailing a letter across the street in Manhattan and it costs the USPS almost nothing, or if it costs hundreds of dollars every day for a mailman to drive the route to your home in rural Alaska on his snow machine to deliver it. Set rates that have at least something to do with what delivery costs, like all private services do. With today's IT, that shouldn't be difficult.
Amazon, e-bay, et al. will charge a flat rate for anywhere in the country. I don't see your point.
But they won't deliver shit for 73¢.
The elephant in the Amtrak station is that ripping out railroad tracks can double real estate values on both sides of a right of way.
Plus you have all that scrap metal to sell.
While as a Libertarian I am 100% in favor of privatization, I am also in favor of the federal government doing ONLY what is explicitly called for in the Constitution - and that includes the Postal Service.
But the Constitution does not mandate home delivery.
It permits postal roads. It does not require them.
And it says nothing about actual post delivery - - - - - - - - -
Privatizing Amtrak ends Amtrak. Which, I know, good news, but I'm just saying. The private sector isn't a miracle worker, it can't invent a profitable business out of an unprofitable product.
If it’s unprofitable, there is bad management or not enough demand. Why are we propping it up?
Because Democrats love trains? Because Europe? Beats the hell out of me.
Because train travel looks like so much fun in old black and white movies!
Let's not kid ourselves. The only reason Reason is suggesting this is because it would directly facilitate drug running, border jumping, and sex trafficking.
I swear, that's the only three things in the world they care about.
How does it help food trucks?
WTF is wrong with you?
Yeah, but where does ranked choice voting fit in?
The government should negotiate rates for the delivery of Federal/State/Local "official mail" (just like almost all businesses do), close the USPS, and anything else that needs delivering is the seller/consumer/communicator's problem. Could be up and running by the end of FY2025.
There are plenty of responses to arguments in favor of privatizing the Post Office. Here is one article that presents a case against privatizing it.
The largest problem that De Rugy doesn't address at all is that the Post Office has a universal service obligation that private companies won't have. That is, everyone in the country is entitled to Post Office delivery, and the rates for someone to send a package to them are fixed according to weight and the class of delivery service. They don't change based on how remote the person receiving the package is. Very sparsely populated areas may have to pick up their mail at some central location a few miles away rather than have it delivered right to their home, but even that much might not be profitable without charging much larger fees than what current rates are.
All of the people that reliably vote Republican in rural areas and small towns would likely see their shipping costs go up to have Amazon or others send them mail and packages. That would hit small businesses in those areas as well.
Another thing noted in that Forbes article I linked is just the scale of the USPS compared to any private shipping business. FedEx and UPS together handled fewer than one tenth the number of parcels that USPS did in 2019, and the USPS sometimes provides the 'last mile' of service for some of the packages sent through FedEx and UPS. USPS also carries a large percentage of all Amazon deliveries, btw.
It is highly deceiving for someone like De Rugy to argue for privatization without addressing these problems. She is a professional writer. She has ample opportunity and an obligation to research this issue and address concerns before she publishes anything.
...everyone in the country is entitled to Post Office delivery, and the rates for someone to send a package to them are fixed according to weight and the class of delivery service. They don't change based on how remote the person receiving the package is.
Sounds like a couple of outdated assumptions that make no sense. If you choose to live remotely, you can travel into town once a month to pick up your mail. Or, I don't know, use email and online billing like everyone else?
"Privatize the Postal Service, Amtrak, Airports, and More."
Oh, please.
Cuba and North Korea haven't privatized any of their industries and just look at what economic titans they are.
Don't forget the public schools. Sell off the buildings to the highest bidder. Let a free market for education emerge. Parents will still want their children to be educated, so there will still be jobs for teachers. Administrative costs will be kept to a minimum, by entrepreneurs wanting to turn a profit.
Kids do better in school when their parents are engaged in the process. What better way to increase engagement than to have them paying tuition and picking the school themselves?
Many people will complain that low-income kids would be left out, but so many people are worried about this that I'm sure a national education-assistance charitable fund would be well-backed. Churches and charities and companies might even offer their own schools, with financial assistance for the needy.
Public Education is paid for by theft (taxation) so the vulnerable young minds may be programed to be loyal, subservient to rulers, so they can be more easily exploited, serve, sacrifice themselves. It is child abuse. All they need is to have their natural inclination to explore, discover, learn, directed by guiding their cognitive abilities until they can do so on their own, i.e., until they can think for themselves. They will be able to choose best after that.
V.D.R.: The public sector is protected by deadly threat (law). The private sector is chosen by popular demand, voting with dollars, which results in constant change based on the changing market conditions. It is NOT financed by "public profits", an oxymoron. If the public sector was better in any way, ever, it wouldn't need to use deadly threat to be forced on us.
People risk their lives to escape from societies that "protect" them from the voluntary private market, from greedy capitalists. Why? Do they love being victimized? Are they ignorant? Stupid? THINK!
The government is exceptionally better qualified than the private sector at one important thing: protecting the public interest. Citizens love it.
The private sector is better than the government at prioritizing the protection of the bottom line over the issue of product quality. Investors love it.
“The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase Its Profits
This essay, written by Milton Friedman, seems to be a core component in the dogma of the libertarian free market ethos. It posits that the shareholders, as owners of a corporation, are solely interested in earning a return on their investment, and thus maximizing profit is always the priority. The corollary to this postulate is that businesses will serve the greater good by adhering to this, as the free market provides efficiency and innovation.
This has been the way that most corporations have behaved ever since, and many were already behaving this way.
But it isn't a reflection of how people really think. It takes individuals, who all will have their own passions, goals, and ideas of what being responsible to the larger society means, and turns them into unfeeling beings that only have the acquisition of greater wealth as motivation for their whole existence. A sole proprietor of a business, being a real person with real human feeling, is always going to have personal relationships with their employees, customers, suppliers, and everyone in the local community. They absolutely will feel social obligations to all of those people. If they don't, then people will view that business owner as a "Scrooge" and hold them in disdain.
Society functions better when people feel at least some responsibility for each other's well-being and happiness. Pure self interest is not seen as a virtue in any ethical or moral system that I've ever heard of, and greed is even one of the seven deadly sins in Christianity.
If corporations didn't lobby government and spend obscene amounts of money on political campaigns, then letting corporations pursue profit ahead of any social needs might work out the way Friedman believed. But we don't live in that world. We live in one where the greater good can be starkly at odds with the profit motive of corporations.
Privatize them so they work as well as Big Lots, Bowflex, Express, Joann, LL Flooring, Party City, Red Lobster, Spirit Airlines, Stoli, TGI Fridays, True Value, Tupperware, and about 300 other companies that went bankrupt in 2024? Not to mention all the companies closing stores throughout the U.S., like Advance Auto, Best Buy, CVS, Denny's, Dollar General, Family Dollar, Macy's, Walgreens, and Wendy's? That kind of privatization?