It seems as though everyone and his brother has weighed in on the problems plaguing the U.S. Postal Service. I spent my entire adult life working in my family’s trucking and warehousing business, and I run a multistate corrugated box business for a decade or so, so my perspective is probably different than most.

Let’s start by stating the obvious; the USPS is a governmental operation. It is owned by the government, it reports to the USPS Board of Governors (members of which are appointed by the President) and Congress, and no competition is allowed with the Postal Service within its core business operation of first-class and periodical mail.

Now that we've established that, let’s get back to the main issue: The Postal Service is in dire financial straits. We hear multiple arguments as to what should be done to resolve the situation. Positions differ dramatically, from keeping the operation essentially as it is but allowing it to expand its service offerings, to completely privatizing the business and allowing it to sink or swim on its own merits — and a plethora of options in-between.

There are essentially two options, both of which are workable, but both of which are radically different. It seems to me that one extreme or the other is the only workable option. Anything in between merely delays the inevitable failure and eventual financial bailout of the Post Office.

Option 1: Continue the monopoly

The first method would be to allow the USPS to continue as a regulated monopoly, controlled by the federal government.

As it currently operates, the USPS is a monopoly across the majority of its business model, but competes against private industry across other portions. This is similar to the situation that existed with AT&T prior to divestiture.

AT&T had a monopoly in providing phone service within its operating areas, but had a nonregulated subsidiary in the Yellow Pages. This imparted a distinct and almost unbreachable barrier to companies attempting to set up competing advertising mediums.

With AT&T’s phone presence in every household, its in-house database, and the fact that its White Pages were included as part and parcel of the package, no one was interested in having any other directory in their homes. AT&T capitalized mercilessly on this advantage and made a fortune in the process. It wasn't until divestiture that independent companies began to provide some meaningful competition.

What happened after the monopoly was broken up? There was confusion for a while, and there were failures of major telecommunication companies. But ultimately, prices for phone service fell dramatically, and options and services proliferated. No one would advocate going back to the old days of the AT&T monopoly.

The USPS is in a similar position. With its front-door presence at every residence, its fleet required to provide six-day-a-week service to every door, and its legal monopoly of the service that pays for this presence, the Postal Service has an image and a system that should have given it an unbeatable edge in parcel delivery.

It was only bureaucratic inertia and an inability to respond quickly to changing market conditions that let UPS and FedEx achieve the success they now enjoy in the areas in which they are allowed to compete.

In a free-market environment, government agencies are discouraged from competing with private companies. The government is to provide only those services considered essential to the "common good."

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that universal mail service falls into that category. In that case, allow the Post Office to provide those services, and those services only, to the public. Allow them to price their services so they can break even on that service, and that service alone.

The problem with letting the Post Office diversify into other products and services to become revenue-neutral is that this disguises the true cost of providing the specific service for which they were chartered. In other words, the Post Office is taking profitable revenue from private-sector businesses to supplement an unprofitable business model.

Option 2: Privatize the mail

The second choice would be to completely privatize the Post Office. It is, in my opinion, the better of the two solutions. Forget the subterfuge; sell stock in the USPS via an IPO, and let investors buy the business. Remove governmental oversight, eliminate all the perks the Post Office enjoys as a quasi-governmental entity and allow it to compete on a level playing field in the private sector.

People will say this will result in either higher rates or poorer service for those in outlying areas, and they could possibly be right. So what’s the problem with that?

Historically, people who traveled west during our young and growing country’s expansion knew they were going to suffer inconveniences by moving so far from population centers. But they made decisions based on what they felt was in their best interests.

They did not expect anyone else to pick up the tab for, or be inconvenienced by, their decisions. If people today decides their quality of life would be best suited by living farther from denser population centers, they are entitled to their choice. But they, not the rest of us, should pay for the consequences.

Ultimately, everyone who requires service will obtain service. Enterprising people will make money addressing these needs, and they would be addressed through the private sector, without the need to rely on the government.

Again, look at what happened when AT&T had its monopoly broken. Could anyone argue that fewer people have access to phone service? Or that the available options have shrunk? Hardly. Based on past experience, it is almost inevitable that everyone in America will ultimately have as good or better service as they have now, and at competitive prices.