Public vs. Private

By Paul Hein.
Exclusive to STR
The two terms have always confused me. In general, public means the people considered as a whole, the populace, the citizenry, etc. Private, on the other hand, refers to particular individuals. So public ownership means ownership by everyone, which is a bewildering concept, to say the least. Private ownership, on the other hand, is straightforward: this is MINE. But is it?
Politicians are prone to speak of certain impressive government buildings as belonging to the public. It sounds good, and probably reassures the politically simple. The White House, we are assured, is the people’s house! Gee, that’s wonderful. Just don’t plan to have your daughter’s wedding reception there, however. You’ll quickly find out that the White House is definitely NOT owned by you, or your entire neighborhood, city, state, or nation, unless by “nation” you mean the rulers. That most public of buildings, like the houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the Treasury, is definitely off limits to the public unless prior approval has been given by the rulers. So is public private?
The reverse is true as well. You may consider certain items of property yours, because they are “private.” You suffer from this delusion because you bought them, paid for them, and may even have impressive documents attesting to your ownership. You have heard the expression “private property” all your life. If, however, you decline to support the public schools in your area, you will learn that your house, or car, actually belongs to the rulers, who will claim it in perfectly routine fashion (by the strangest stroke of good luck—for them--the courts are owned and operated by them) and take possession without a hitch. So the concept of private property must be understood to mean “private” only as long as regular tribute is made to the publicans, in amounts, and at times and places, that they dictate. So private may actually mean public. It’s all very clear, isn’t it?
If a single factor could be found to trigger a political revolution in America, it might be the idea of ownership. What does it mean to actually OWN something? It’s a subject worthy of meditation. If something is mine--actually, truly, mine--how can it belong to someone else? How can MY income, for example, be claimed by anyone else? Is it mine, or isn’t it? The assumption, I believe, is that my (sic!) property belongs to others because they are the government, and they make the rules. Isn’t that a preposterous idea? What it boils down to is that the strangers who claim that my property is actually theirs can do so because they say so. They make the laws, which they enjoin us to take most seriously, and by those laws they can take what we naively think belongs to us. Private property becomes public, if the private individuals calling themselves government say so. It’s madness!
There’s a variation upon this theme of ownership: The rulers are not only willing to have me share my goods with them, but they will lavish upon me a share of what they have, as well. What they have is debt--staggering, mind-boggling debt. As private individuals (Government, after all, is an abstraction. Did you ever see the United States buying things at Wal-Mart?), the rulers run up astonishing bills for their pet projects, which they then term the public debt, meaning that you and I--the public--are expected to pay them. If it is proper and fitting to ask, “How can mine be theirs?” it is equally proper and fitting to question the converse: “How can theirs be mine?”
We are soothed with the assurance that government derives its power by delegation from the people, but, personally, I don’t have the right to seize other people’s property, or to burden them with my debts. I’d be willing to bet you don’t have that power, either. How, therefore, could we delegate to Congress a power we don’t have?
It’s a simple question that everyone should ask of his Congressmen: By what legitimate process does mine becomes yours? Don’t accept “the law” as an answer; the ones who plunder are the ones who make the laws. (Besides, the question involves morality, not legislation.) If it has never occurred to you to ask, or if you dismiss it as somehow improper, can you complain when you end up virtually penniless in government housing, commuting to work on public transportation, being given an “allowance” instead of what you’re worth? If there is a line to be drawn between the people and those who would be their rulers, it involves this simple question: How can this be yours, when it is mine? If you accept the idea that strangers can claim for themselves what you think of as yours, you have put the yoke upon your shoulders. Quit complaining, and pull!

Your rating: None Average: 10 (4 votes)
Paul Hein's picture
Columns on STR: 150


Suverans2's picture

One cannot have "private" property if one chooses to be, or remain, a member of the group known as "public", that is to say a "citizen[1]". When one chooses to do so, he has sold his birthright (his natural liberty) for a mess of pottage (membership-only entitlements, privileges, civil rights); (only freemen, i.e. semi-sovereign[2] individuals, retain their natural rights), so, as Paul Hein correctly stated, " have put the yoke upon your shoulders. Quit complaining, and pull!"

Proverbs 23:1 (KJV) When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: 2 And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. 3 Be not desirous of his dainties [entitlements, privileges, civil rights]: for they are deceitful meat. [Bracketed information and emphasis added]

[1] CITIZEN. In general. A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas,) possessing all the rights [civil rights, not natural rights] and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties. ~ A Dictionary of Law (c.1891), page 206 [Bracketed information added]

Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary

[2] One is said to be semi-sovereign only, and not sovereign, when in any respect or respects he is liable to be controlled by a paramount government. The "paramount government" of the Freeman is the "law of nature" or to be more precise, the "Natural Law of Man". In order for the Freeman to retain his own Natural Rights, he must be obedient to the Natural Law of Man, that is to say, he must respect everyone else's Natural Rights.

"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" ~ Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

To the man who tells the truth, give a fast horse; he will need it to escape on.

Paul's picture

Government thrives on euphemism, and we live in a fantasy world built of euphemisms. If people once got around all the euphemisms, we'd have a revolution tomorrow.

I no longer use the word "public". Instead of "public schools", I say "government schools"; instead of "public lands", I say "government land." Might as well call a spade, a spade.

Private property is certainly possible, but your house is not an example of it, even if it is all paid off. You are a renter, with the State as landlord. Might as well call a spade, a spade.

Private property is that which you can prevent others from taking. Plain and simple.