In the Netherlands, you can put a sticker on your mailbox indicating that you do not wish to receive unaddressed mail. The people who deliver advertisement flyers etc. are required by law to adhere to that.
The problem of having an automated system decide what is or isn't spam simply doesn't exist for physical mail. The analogy is therefore flawed.
The analogy is meaningless based simply upon two concepts: 1) we're not talking about physical spam at all, and 2) that just because you can't do anything about physical spam doesn't mean you can't do anything about electronic spam. The analogy is completely
irrelevant - we're not talking about physical spam. We're talking about electronic spam transmitted over a computer network, sitting on computers whose sole design purpose is to perform tasks rapidly for humans.
We're talking about sifting through 300 messages every morning, all of which look nearly identical when you're staring at a long scrolling list of messages in the Outlook inbox, with maybe one or two legitimate messages hidden in there somewhere --- while
any one of the other 298 messages could blow up your computer or trigger a cascading deluge of more spam if you so much as highlight it. Things like that don't happen with physical mail because people go to Federal Prison for it.
Dealing with electronic spam as above is a far, far cry from throwing away 5 flyers which are obviously from a catalog company, 6 envelopes which are obviously credit offers, and 2 coupon sheets.
Electronic spam is simply not the same as physical spam and any analogy is not only flawed, but completely baseless on its face.