>Sure, by closing the unprofitable branches, cutting service to thinly populated areas, cutting maintenance and staff to look more profitable for the IPO or to boost the stock price, looking for a good sale of the whole business or selling more stock. What would prevent a next Enron in this case?
>
>So am I to infer that you believe the government to be much more virtuous and altruistic than private enterprise?
>
>Even the health insurance does not get everywhere. I worked for an outfit with telecommuting workers (aka employees aka associates) in eight states, and guess what, there was not a single health insurance which would provide coverage in all eight. Cable service, or internet in general, took a long time to get into some backwoods - I remember Rox had to take satellite, because neither DSL nor cable were available in her area, just a few miles from downtown. What would guarantee that all the post offices in such corners would still exist if post office was private? And, also, what would guarantee that the price would be the same everywhere?
>
>So what is your point? Do you honestly believe that everyone has a right to health insurance, internet service and a post office in their town? What else does everyone have the right to? Just curious. IMHO, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just about covers everything that people should have a right to.

Exactly. Unfortunately, many people (now over 50%...thus our dilemma) mis-read "the PURSUIT of happiness" to be "happiness" The action verb (the work) is conveniently overlooked.