What is Public, What is Not?
2005.06.29 1:08

In order to be 'public', endorsement by established power is needed. In political power, it has long been considered the Imperial power as the absolute therefore it is the only 'public' throughout overall history, except from 1215 - 1868, during that period power seizure of shognate from the warrior class kept on.
From those 650 years, a kind of double power structure over ordinary people existed. Both Imperial family and shognate family are regarded as 'public'.
In the age the revenue of many multinational corporations are well comparable to those of relatively small state, besides their range of activities is well over beyond the very natioal border, interest. It is not exaggarating to say they are representing not only narrow national interest but interest of the people around the world - therefore they are 'public'. In the next decades of the 21st century they are claiming to be 'public' corporation.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
What is Public, What is Not? Preferences Top 7 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 7 comments 0: 7 comments 1: 7 comments 2: 2 comments 3: 1 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
no.(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowskiNO@SPAMangelfire.com> on 2005.06.29 3:03 (#12933634) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2005.09.29 4:06)
Public is something owned and operated by the government for the purpose of facilitating the function of government.Roads, for example. At least in the US, roads are owned and operated by the government in order for the government to fulfill its duty of providing mail delivery service. That's at the federal level.Local and state level governments will have different functions, but the same principal applies. If it is necessary for the government to fulfill its function, and if the government owns and operates it, it's public. Otherwise, if it fails either or both of these criteria, it isn't.Private corporations, no matter how much tax revenue they generate, or are capable of generating given a favorable (government enforced) situation, are not public.--Glamkowski's Law of Email: Co-workers will never read more than two lines worth of any email you send them.
Re:no.(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.29 7:31 (#12936539) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Recent SCOTUS ruling on eminent domain certainly changed the notion 'public' used to have.
Roads are state owned, or local government whatever, but how about subway, railroads? Their ownership is various - some are owned by city authorities but others are private ownership. Roughly speaking, subway 50%, rairoads 100% are private ownership here in Japan but they remained to be 'public' traffic facilities.
So strictly speaking who owns those facilities doesn't make much difference, as long as their functions are closely related to the benefit of the general public those ought to be reagarded as 'public' instead of 'private'.
In SCOTUS ruling they admitted shopping mall or commercial facilities alike as long as their purpose is serving in line with the benifit of local people, we have to admit the 'public' factor in it.
Japan's warlords started serving as a guard of imperial family around 1086. Since then many warlords virtually ruled the country, but before their authorities are not established, they were just guards, not a ruler. The difinition of power is fragile and fluctuating. As the role of multinational corporation expands beyond the limit of national borders, interest, they might play the similar role Japan's warlord took in history.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:no.(Score:2)
by Degrees (220395) <degrees&comcast,net> on 2005.06.29 14:48 (#12939170) (http://home.comcast.net/~gerisch Last Journal: 2005.09.28 13:28)
There is a big difference here in the US contrasting a private corporation versus a public corporation*.
The difference is "what the organization is allowed to do with the money."
Looking at the private corporation, McDonald's restaurants: they can take all their money and squander it, if they so desire. It's not the citizen's money. (It is the shareholder's money, but becoming a shareholder in McDonald's is optional.) If McDonald's wants to basically "give" one billion dollars to Donald Trump - there is nothing the public or the government can do about it.
Looking at the public corporation, government: they have legal requirements to not squander their money. If they choose to "give" money to a private person, that act is the crime "Gift of Public Funds". This responsibility for money comes from the fact that paying taxes is mandatory - not optional. Because the police can evict you from your house for non-payment of taxes, the government has the legal responsibility to manage that tax money for "public good" (which in older days meant "public works".) Here in more modern times, as government grew, it wanted to (and got permission to) spend money with private companies to provide those "public good" services.
Another way to look at the difference between private and public is to contrast their business models. For-Profit versus Non-Profit. Private companies desire customers, because they are going to make a profit off those customers. Public agencies dislike applicants (or offenders) because it means more money spent**. Police arrests are supposed to be money lost. Court cases, likewise. Law enforcement's job is to protect us from those who prey upon the public. Only as much tax can be collected to cover the costs of operation. "Profiting" is explicitly disallowed.
This is why the SCOTUS decision is flawed: in New London, Connecticut, redevelopment officials decided to prey upon some of their own residents on behalf of a private (for profit) corporation. Since the local government was the problem, the defendants ran their case all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And the majority of the SCOTUS said "Not our problem - if you don't like, take it up with the local officials."
Which does, by fiat, endorse local corruption. There is no higher court with which to file an appeal.
Regarding the developer for whom the property is being acquired: there is no change in his private corporations' status. He was, is, and will remain a For-Profit, Private corporation. The (corrupt) local officials argued that they will reap higher taxes from the new owner; but, that would have been true had Kelo, et. al., sold of their own free will (or aged and died, and their heirs sold the properties).
This case was all about local officials wanting to force citizens out of their homes, to make the business deal easy for the private developer. Their duty is to protect the citizenry. Their acts were to undermine the protection of law.
Pretty much the dictionary definition of government corruption [m-w.com].
*This terminology is flawed. When you say private corporation versus public corporation, most people will immediately think "stock market status". Private corporations don't sell their stock on Wall Street, public (stock) corporations do. Any member of the public can visit a stock broker and buy shares in a public (stock) corporation. However, government is an incorporation, and a specifically Public one. Governments don't issue stock, and in the case of the US Treasury, can declare their own capital. So with my terminology of "private versus public", I refer to controlling interest. Private companies control their own interest. Public governments are (in theory, at least) controlled by votes of the public. In a private corporation, a person can buy shares to become the sole controlling interest. In a public government (corporation), no one person can control the organization. There is no mechanism to gain sole controlling interest.
** This ignores those bureaucrats who desire to build their empire at the public expense.--The difficulty of Libertarianism: not 'I must be free' but 'That other jerk must be free, as well'. [ Parent ]
Re:no.(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.29 22:15 (#12940631) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Thank you very very much for your apparently thoughtful comment. This is a paragon of jurisdiction.
Honestly speaking I thought exactly the same thing you mentioned. To interfere with private matters by the state this time by court is apparently violating civil code. Only on second thought I thought scotus people know better than not to know such a basic principle on private and public, then I rewrite my journal - private property and changing notion of publicity.
Scotus people don't have to pay full respect to current laws, because they don't have to make a decision in line with current laws, coventions, moresses. For they are the ones who decide what is lawful or unlawful according only to their conscience.
I thought they -scotus people are showing a paragon of what this country has to steer.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:no.(Score:3, Interesting)
by Degrees (220395) <degrees&comcast,net> on 2005.06.30 13:15 (#12947898) (http://home.comcast.net/~gerisch Last Journal: 2005.09.28 13:28)
I understand that members of the SCOTUS should be a paragon of the courts. And yes, in some ways, they define the role, because of their position.
On the other hand, they are only human. Humans make mistakes.
If you read here (Subsequent_history - Justice Souter's home) [wikipedia.org] you will find an interesting twist, which could very well cause this decision to be rescinded.
Heh heh heh heh. ;-)
--The difficulty of Libertarianism: not 'I must be free' but 'That other jerk must be free, as well'. [ Parent ]
Re:no.(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowskiNO@SPAMangelfire.com> on 2005.06.29 21:58 (#12940547) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2005.09.29 4:06)
So strictly speaking who owns those facilities doesn't make much difference, as long as their functions are closely related to the benefit of the general public those ought to be reagarded as 'public' instead of 'private'. I disagree. You're thinking basically is in-line with how the USSC ruled, since it is ultimately leads to the argument that anything that increases property values is "public use" since it generates more tax revenues which are used to increase the amount of public services available. Which is exactly how the city of New London argued, and exactly what the supreme court found perfectly acceptable.But, as Degrees noted in his (her?) reply, the real benefactor here is a private corporation. And let's not forget here that most jurisdictions offer tax BREAKS and other financial incentives in order to attract businesses, thus negating the "increased tax revenues" argument flat out.Degrees is right - the Kelo is all about corruption.But it's not the first time in our history we've had rampant and blatant corruption. The construction of the transnational rail roads was fraught with huge corruption as well, and the era of monopolies (Standard Oil, American Sugar, et al.) was another era of massive corruption. We somehow survived those, so we very well might survive this one too.Life in the US isn't all as rosy as some people who have you believe :-pStill better than just about anywhere else, but just not perfect.--Glamkowski's Law of Email: Co-workers will never read more than two lines worth of any email you send them. [ Parent ]
Re:no.(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.29 22:49 (#12940844) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Yeah, I 'want' to believe scotus people represent conscience of all the consciences all Americans combined. I don't want to believe they are corrupted. Whatever the government America is governed, America being kept on a citadel of freedom.
Concerning this you seemed to shed light on tax revenues in elmegil's JE too, it has little to do with scotus decision. Scotus people are as long as I believe not so narrow-minded.
I am very sorry to say so but they are the laws, since any country has to be run by someone, interpretation of constitutional law by someone is inevitable. They are bestowed unanimously the right to decide what is lawful and what is unlawful according to nothing but their conscience, there's no room for any existing law, rulings, precedents, conventions, moresses to intrfere with their decision, since all codes are liable to change, but humans conscience keeps on representing best fruits humans can come up with.
Let's wait and see the consequences...--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters