Universal service obligations have been some of the least effective tools used...

After all what constitutes not servicing?

How would a state run service be better?

> How would a state run service be better?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

Each post office has individual leadership which serves the purpose of that principle.

That workaround justifies nearly anything.

Unless you have an elected position or the position needs to be filled ignoring the wishes of the local group that would select a replacement that is kind of true.

Local elections have real value.

But splintering a government entity just because you can isn't automatically better.

For instance who pays for the last mile? Who pays for the first mile? With a federal program it doesn't matter the answer is the same. With a state program sending mail to a low density state could impact the pricing structure of a high density state.

You could end up with fragmentation where cross state is more expensive or worse these friction points are enough where the monopoly breaks down because a few states don't need a monopoly and just let local businesses compete.

> With a state program sending mail to a low density state could impact the pricing structure of a high density state.

Yep, aligns incentives nicely!

> You could end up with fragmentation where cross state is more expensive or worse these friction points are enough where the monopoly breaks down because a few states don't need a monopoly and just let local businesses compete.

Sounds like a good outcome, no? Yes, down with monopolies, especially government enforced ones.

You presume that saving money on stamps (which are less than $1 and locked to inflation) is more important than universal service.

Why?