Bill Ward bward*remove_this* at ix.netcom.com
Sun May 17 23:48:20 EST 1998

react at ix.netcom.com wrote:

>Bill Ward wrote:
>> Thank you for making my point.  The private sector is not coercive,
>> so those wishing to force others to submit to their will must
>> involve the public sector, or become part of the criminal sector.

>Yes, I see what you are driving at: the public sector retains some of
>the power to coerce industry.  Yet it must still persuade the public. 
>However, you should consider that the private sector must be persuasive
>only in those areas where it is forbidden by the public sector from
>being coercive.

>I should restate that you are still completely wrong in this sense:  The
>private sector is inherently coercive and is held in check by the public
>sector.  The public sector is inherently persuasive, and only as a
>result of successful persuasion does it have the power to coerce.


One last time, slowly and carefully:
As a civilized society, we collectively agree to set rules (laws)
whereby we can live together without personally engaging in armed
conflict to protect ourselves.  Those who do not agree and comply
with those laws are the "criminal sector".  We establish a "public
sector" and give it the monopoly on enFORCEing those laws. The
remaining citizens comprise the "private sector", working and paying
taxes for the protection service.  The private sector is allowed to
use force only for immediate defense, not directly to enforce laws. 

That much is pretty universal, the difference here in the US is that
the Constitution determines how we select our public sector.  In
some areas of the world, it's the warlord with the biggest army.  

In my opinion, the role of the US public sector has suffered mission
creep.  Instead of simply protecting us from crime and invasion, we
have allowed it to protect us from everything from communicable
diseases (arguably appropriate), down to protection from buying
undersized plums.  The cost has escalated to the point many would
like protection from the public sector's "protection".  The solution
has become the problem.

There are two reasons for this (IMO):

1.  Many ignorant but well-meaning and likeable people believe they
know how to spend your money better than you do.  They are willing
to use force against you, but only for your own good, of course.  To
do that, they become involved with the public sector. They are the
most dangerous, because they feel righteous about their actions.

2.  Some of the criminal sector find it much easier and safer to
become involved in the public sector to take your money for their
own benefit.  They are somewhat less dangerous, because they know
they are doing wrong, and may even have the decency to feel guilty
about it.   

So: The public sector has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
The private sector cannot use force except for immediate defense.
The criminal sector uses force whenever it wants. but pays a price
when caught.

If you haven't got it by now, you won't ever get it.

Go troll in some other pond, this has nothing to do with chemistry,
and I'm going back to quietly lurking and learning.

Bill Ward 

More information about the Microbio mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net