Public vs. Private

PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE

Societies need both healthy public and private realms. When these mix and are confused or one dominates the other, social problems result. The two sectors should not be viewed as enemies or competitors, but often we come into conflict over which should have dominance or what properly belongs in each. The legitimate meeting place for these is in the individual citizen, who is both a private and public entity, but nowhere else. Otherwise, there should be an impossibly high and thick, impenetrable wall between them. As individuals, we belong to ourselves, but we also belong equally with everyone else in the public sphere - it's our commons, our shared social heritage. We are social animals; we must have this commons to be fully human. It's our duty to ourselves to participate in it.

We collectively own and should equally share the public realm. We may participate in it as we see fit. It must be open for all information to freely pass through it. It's the forum where we discuss and make political decisions for anything that affects the whole society. It is society's voice.

No matter what social status or wealth an individual has in the private realm, in the public realm we should only be viewed as absolutely equal, perhaps even interchangeable, having no discernible differences to government authority. In many instances government should be blind to any individual differences. Each of us has equal representation and one vote on any issue.

Any publicly owned physical property must be equally open to all, but fair rules must restrict what any individuals can do to protect it from the ravages of predatory uses. Garret Hardin's insightful essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons", illustrates this problem.

Certain institutions should be public, others only private. We may have valid arguments over others.

The private realm is a subset of society wherein we as individuals have the freedom to be left alone and live our lives as we see fit. It is an area of life where government and society may not impinge. We may not, however, infringe on the privacy of anyone else, for that would be a violation of their rights. Most relationships in the private realm are voluntary and contractual and are covered by civil law.

Because we have rights to associate we can freely form private organizations to further our private interests. Those organizations must follow the same laws that govern us individually, except that no private group organizations should have political power. They should be restricted to operating only in the private realm.

The conservative turn in the past 30 years in America has attempted to privatize everything. Some of this is caused by greed and thinking that everything should make money – that that would create the best economy in which the majority would prosper. By reducing the size of government and its inefficiency, replacing its function by businesses, privatization would usher in the millennium of prosperity. But private functions can't have a broad social view, they're too personal and can only be special interests, competing among themselves to the detriment of society. This condition has been about private power attempting to gain more power and privilege by destroying our collective commons. The people who support this political belief don't want to be responsible to society. Anything that suggests a collective or common social cause is anathema to them, raising up the irrational fears of Socialism, which means losing personal wealth and social power. It's not an egalitarian position.

Businesses should be strictly private institutions, separated from the public realm and government by stringent laws with extremely severe penalties, should they be violated. They wouldn't be recognized as political entities. Private institutions would be forbidden from participating in politics or anything in the public realm. They could not participate in creating laws. They would be governed by civil contract law and must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws that govern individuals. Owners and employees might complain that this would restrict their rights, but as individuals, they still have a vote and access to representation, so their private interests wouldn't be restricted. It's just that the institution wouldn't be recognized as a political entity and have any representation, preventing political abuse from the two ton elephant in the room.

Publicly owned companies pose a problem because they are considered private institutions, but they can be owned in part by purchasing stock by anyone who can afford it. They can't control who may purchase stock and that places them in peril from being taken over by wealthy investors in the case that a majority of stock is available for purchase.

Should corporations be allowed to own other corporations? Shouldn't there be a limit to corporate size and power? Should they be allowed hostile takeovers of other corporations? All of these have social consequences that shouldn't be decided alone by minority special interests, but by the whole social body.

The stock market is both privately owned and public, controlling the economy. Is the economy private or public? It is both.

The same considerations should apply to nonprofit corporations, including political groups. Although they are mandated to serve public interests, they are primarily special interests with specific positions and issues. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to directly influence the political process except by making their positions publicly known. If you want to influence the electorate, you have the freedom to shout from a stump.

A nation's military has traditionally been considered a public institution. In some nations it is a political power or, as in America, it is under civilian control. Now, private security/mercenary organizations, such as Blackwater, are being used with the military in Iraq and are building up power in this country. They are a threat to the nation because they could be used to back a coup against the people and other assorted abuses.

The privatization of prisons has caused the proliferation of prison building and increased incarceration because there is monetary incentive. Prisons should only be public institutions because they are a part of the justice system, which must equally and fairly belong to all.

Our natural resources should have been our birthright, but most of them became privately owned. Even the resources in publicly owned land were leased at a pittance to corporations, sometimes for 100 years, were exploited, and the products sold to us at a highly increased profit. We had no control over this because we were often kept in the dark about these laws passed by Congress, or even if we knew we didn't care because we got plentiful, cheap products. Therefore, our resources weren't properly managed, became depleted or destroyed outright. Potentially renewable resources weren't treated as renewable, a failure of responsibility and stewardship to future generations. Clear cutting of forests is a good example.

Should the national infrastructure of power, phone, communication and oil/gas lines be nationalized? Everyone needs these; they span the country. Public ownership would confer a broad social benefit by setting common standards and availability. We have no problem with the city, county or state owning the roads and the water/sewer mains, so why shouldn't any universal, physical infrastructure be publicly owned? After all, some electric power is generated by the government. Some cities own gas and electric lines. Practically all water and sewer systems are publicly owned utilities. We already consider the private power and phone companies as regulated public utilities. Why shouldn't they be made so by law? We're supposed to own the Internet, but ISPs have the real power to control it. Wouldn't it be easier to manage without the many conflicting regional and local ownerships? There could still be private phone, gas, power, etc. companies that would provide for the national grids, new equipment and maintenance by contract to government. The system could at least be made regional. All lines that cross private and public properties, city limits and county and state boundaries should be considered a public resource, not privately owned and subject to private interests. By doing this these services could be offered at a uniform, lower price because they would be forbidden making a profit. Those who can't afford them for legitimate reasons would be given them free of charge.

We also legally own the broadcast radio, TV, cell phone spectrum, which is leased to private companies, but private broadcasters have too much control over it and the FCC. We do have the power to revoke broadcasting licenses. Only if we have an interest and desire to make it work for all of us can we take it back. We deserve more benefits from it than paying broadcasters to use it. Wouldn't you prefer to have one publicly owned cell phone network? It would be cheaper and eliminate compatibility problems.

We need to hold a major public debate about how to solve the problems of the current conflicts between public and private and restore to ourselves a vibrant public sector.