Public Sector and Private Sector – Language Upgrade Needed
After a fair amount of internet research combined with asking people much older than me about the origin story of the subject terminology, no one really seems to know when we started using the terms public sector and private sector. Their use certainly predates my arrival to this realm. They seem to be at least as old as any living person, and they were probably adapted from similar terms whose use stretches back much further into the past. Despite the old age of these terms and our familiarity with them, I have never heard anyone question them. However, I myself find them quite questionable.
The majority of us in today’s world understand the power of language to frame our perspective, guide the direction of our discourse, and shape our shared reality. The less we have the right words to express an idea or explain a potential path, the less we can articulate for ourselves the way to actualize it, let alone gain traction with others. The limits of our language can often quite literally be the limits of our power. Remember the famous refrain from Albus Dumbledore. — “Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic.”
People who hold political offices are top-notch understudies of Dumbledore. They understand language’s fundamental place in human existence, and they play with it constantly to mold the opinion of anyone who listens closely to their siren songs. People in the marketing profession are also masters of using language to persuade others to believe in a brand, buy something, or change their tastes. When we start a new movement, often one of the first things we do is create new terms that we can implant into the social discourse, thereby re-shaping the shared reality to include the new possibilities we want others to see. Look at the terms “social justice” and “microaggression.” Masterful examples of creating new terms to open the door to peoples’ perceived realities and circulate new possibilities therein.
Language is akin to software for our brains. This is why when we have terms that are ubiquitous and unquestioned yet highly dangerous, we need to closely examine them for a potential software update. So, what’s so questionable and dangerous about the seemingly innocuous terms public sector and private sector? They create massive misperceptions about the nature of how our society works and what is actually happening in our daily reality. They lead us to complacency regarding things about which we may not be so satisfied if we obtained a deeper understanding. Let’s dive in and come to terms with the terms.
When we say public sector, we’re generally referring to parts of society that are owned or controlled by the government. What comes to mind for most of us when we think of the public sector is something for all of us. Something that’s owned by all of us in a way. Something for everyone’s benefit. We generally tend to have a trusting feeling toward public institutions; after all, their entire purpose is to serve peoples’ needs, usually for free (at least we don’t have to pay for it at the moment of obtaining the services, such as at a library).
When we say private sector, we’re generally referring to all the trade activity, businesses, and parts of society that aren’t owned or controlled by the government. What comes to mind for most of us when we think of the private sector is people going into business to make a profit for themselves in the competitive marketplace. For many this is viewed fondly, and for others it conjures uneasiness about the potential to be screwed over by a person or business out for quick gains.
The problem with the label private sector is that all trade is in its essence a public activity. When you sell your products, you’re selling them in public. When you buy stuff, you’re buying it in public. The marketplace is a fundamentally public affair; whether the government is involved or not doesn’t change that. Calling it the private sector unnecessarily paints free trade as the domain of people going for what they want, with or without regard for the common good. This tends to diminish our cognizance of the fact that trade is a public, social activity wherein the only way to get what you want is to help other humans get what they want.
The problem with the label public sector is that it unnecessarily gives the impression of benevolence and trustworthiness. As stated previously, that label tends to make us think of things that are for the common good, services rendered in a way that transcends mere “private” interest. It also gives us the impression of necessity — there MUST be some institutions that exist strictly for the common good, right? Another massive failure of the term public sector is the way that it excuses the waste of life energy and resources. When an institution is deemed “public,” it does not seem to matter how inefficient it is. Even if they waste more than half of all the resources allocated to them, they will continue to receive more. We feel that we must keep feeding the institution no matter what, because it exists for the common good.
This whole dichotomy of public sector vs. private sector gives us the impression of “things that are for all of us” vs. “things done selfishly.”
The underlying reality is this. What we call the private sector is everything that people do without being forced to do it, or forced to do it a certain way (insofar as the government remains uninvolved). What we call the public sector is everything that people are forced to do by the government. It is decided that public education is needed. The government forcefully expropriates wealth from the people through taxation and inflation, then uses it to set up an educational institution run by government appointed officials. People are compelled to use it — their money was already stolen to pay for it. People are also fined and have other violence used against them if they don’t cooperate with the system.
Contrast that to the case of a person getting together with their friends to open a school. They don’t force or threaten one another to gain each other’s involvement. They don’t rob houses for seed money. They don’t force anyone to attend their school. They advertise it and people can go there if they want to. We would call this a private school, though it is in fact a totally public endeavor. There are a multitude of variations on this theme. We have government healthcare programs and healthcare programs operated by people freely. Both are public; one involves violence, and the other doesn’t. We have government energy programs and energy programs operated by people freely. Both are public; one involves violence, and the other doesn’t.
In light of the above distinctions, it makes sense to upgrade the language of public sector and private sector to the following: Violent (Government) Action and Non-Violent Action.
When we use these new terms which more accurately reflect the underlying reality, we suddenly perceive new possibilities, and are prompted to think of new questions: Do we really need to be forced to educate ourselves and our children? Is it not important enough that we would do it and do it well anyway? Could we do it in a better way than the current system full of bureaucracy, hundreds of petty laws, power politics, and waste?
Hmmm, it probably wouldn’t be hard to beat that…
Our software update will serve us well in uncovering and avoiding another devastating trap concealed by the outdated language of public sector and private sector. These terms hide an implicit assumption that the government is an integral part of the economy, an inseparable part of the whole. However, our new terms bring us new, fruitful questions. Is there any place for violence in the economy? Should government action include anything other than the military, the police, and the courts (restraining violence)? These new terms break the implicit connection and open us up to investigate a deeper possibility: separating the government from the economy, in the same way that the government is separate from religion, and for the same reasons.
These new terms invite us to think more comprehensively and deeply about the nature of ourselves and our society. How much do we respect ourselves? Might we be insulted that some humans think the rest of us are so backward and incompetent that we must be forced to do certain things for our own good? How much do we respect other people? Enough to let them make their own choices? What does it do to goodwill in our society when we systematically use violence? Is any goal so important that we should be willing to use violence to achieve it?
The next time you see or hear someone talking about the health of the public sector or the growth of the private sector, send them here — it’s time for a software update.