The words we use to delineate between the portions of our world run by governments (public) and everything else (private) strike me as nebulous and inadequate. The "private sector" sounds shadowy and secretive, and the "public sector" sounds the opposite-open, visible and cooperative. But it isn't so. Ask yourself if you feel more cooperative with Walmart or with the IRS. Think of all the classified information, protected from your eyes for your own benefit, and of the secret mission carried out in your name.
No, "public" and "private" just won't do.
How about this: the "productive sector" and the "nonproductive sector"? Admittedly, the "nonproductive sector" is a little cumbersome, so we may want to consider variants in wording, but you get the idea. Some would argue that the government and its agents, public-private partnerships (
yuck!) and the like, occasionally produce goods and services people want, to which I would argue, "not without forcibly creating monopolies for themselves." Be that as it may, it is prudent to search for better, more universally accepted alternatives.
Which leads me to the distinction that I think is incontrovertible: the "peaceful sector" and the "violent sector". The unifying principle of government is force, and I feel that the nomenclature should reflect it. If you don't believe me, try starting a government of your own without the use of weapons. When you fail, open a bakery or a lemonade stand and give something back to the community.
I don’t mean that a business politician won’t steal; stealing is his
business. But all politicians are nonproductive. The only commodity any
politician has to offer is jawbone. -- Lazarus Long
No comments:
Post a Comment