3 ms·

> The clear distinction between private and public is (in my estimation) more of an idealisation of free market economic systems than reality. Let's look at ma

> The clear distinction between private and public is (in my estimation) more of an idealisation of free market economic systems than reality. Let's look at mall cops vs real cops. A real cop has the authority to blow your head off, a mall cop not as much. A clear distinction between private and public should be something to hope for. Otherwise you end up with prisons being run by for-profit companies, and leaders of industry writing the laws. That isn't a free market, that's corporatism. People falsely believe that they can give the government more power, and in turn, the power will be used to regulate industry. Almost like raising a big dog to provide protection. But what ends up happening is, industry comes by with a big ole steak and wins over the dogs loyalty. And now agencies that were supposed to protect us are the ones selling us out. If private and public initiatives aren't distinctly split, you'll end up with leaders of industry taking over the public sector and distorting the market for everyone else.

dalbasal 9y ago
I assume your 2nd paragraph is at least a little tongue in cheek. Otherwise, I think your trying to characterized things in clear public-private terms, the language of particular political and economic philosophies. What I was saying is that I think that terminology is flawed. The public-private dichotomy is never a clean break. Corporations are a part of the governmental system, and this is not limited to influencing laws and their enforcement. That is, they are the deciders (often) of what does and doesn't happen, and how.
- smokeyj 9y ago
  What do you think a better terminology is? I happen to agree with you. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to use computer-network terms to describe the human network. Because what we're trying to analyze is fundamentally similar - which is the rate consensus can be found, network uptime, security vulnerabilities, decentralization, failover, etc. In a way democracy is a kind of p2p network. And then there's confusion when you ask "who is in charge" because you could say no one is in charge or everyone is in charge - and both could be correct.

dalbasal 9y ago

I assume your 2nd paragraph is at least a little tongue in cheek. Otherwise, I think your trying to characterized things in clear public-private terms, the language of particular political and economic philosophies. What I was saying is that I think that terminology is flawed. The public-private dichotomy is never a clean break. Corporations are a part of the governmental system, and this is not limited to influencing laws and their enforcement. That is, they are the deciders (often) of what does and doesn't happen, and how.

smokeyj 9y ago
What do you think a better terminology is? I happen to agree with you. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to use computer-network terms to describe the human network. Because what we're trying to analyze is fundamentally similar - which is the rate consensus can be found, network uptime, security vulnerabilities, decentralization, failover, etc. In a way democracy is a kind of p2p network. And then there's confusion when you ask "who is in charge" because you could say no one is in charge or everyone is in charge - and both could be correct.