I don't often write about the process by which I come up with posts, as I figure such writing would bore everyone to tears. (I know I would hate it. I can't stand those authors who think everyone is infinitely fascinated with stories about writers. -- Though when I was younger I was guilty of that self-important delusion as well.) However, in this case it does make for a useful introduction, so please bear with me and forgive me a slight bit of a digression.

When I thought of this topic this morning, I was in the kitchen fixing my son breakfast, so did not even have a chance to write down the title, much less put anything onto paper. What is odd is that such situations are usually the ones in which I am most productive. I will end up writing pages of text in my head, which I later try to reproduce on paper with greater or lesser success. (Usually lesser, unfortunately.) In this case, I forgot quite a bit, but two things stuck with me. First, the two contrasts I thought central to this essay, the modern distinction of public versus private and the older, and I will argue better, distinction of state versus social. The other thing that stuck with me was a bit of the introduction, which was going to start off discussing how rarely this issue comes up, and how the debate seems to be almost entirely settled in the mind of the public.

Unfortunately, a few minutes ago, while reading through the comments on an another essay, that entire lead in was demolished when CW brought up a variation on the distinction I was going to claim was so little mentioned. Granted, it was not precisely the same as the distinctions I was going to discuss, but hearing someone mention the importance of distinguishing between cultural and political, which would normally have thrilled me, was a bit depressing, as it meant I had to rewrite the entire introduction I had in my head. (Or, in the alternative, pretend I had not yet read that comment and go with my original text.) Sadly, I have a conscience, especially about my writing, and so, though it was a pretty good introduction, I had to scrap what writing I had managed to recall and start all over again.

Having said all of that, let me now forget about it all, and move on to what was supposed to be my introduction.

Politics, like most social sciences, or even like most philosophical systems is full of dualities, pairs which are convenient for describing things. Of course, in some ways, that is more of a reflection of human nature than of reality itself, as humans prefer systems which are simple and memorable, and there is nothing more simple than a set of two points. Even if things require a slightly more elaborate description, it is still quite easy to divide all possibilities into a straight line spectrum split between two poles¹. Of course, this simple system can be improperly applied, giving rise to errors such as the "excluded middle"², or failing to take into account additional, significant distinctions, but, whether an artifact of human laziness, or a reflection of reality, these dualities are common, and, in many cases, are valid and useful descriptions.

On the other hand, sometimes these pairs, having been in use for a period of time, fall into disfavor, for one reason or another, and end up replaced with an alternate pair, one which describes the range of possibilities in terms of another aspect. The one which comes to mind immediately is the shift from the 19th century definitions of liberal and conservative, with liberals favoring small government and the conservatives favoring old aristocratic or royalist systems (sometimes including mercantilist and protectionist advocates as well), to the modern redefinition of liberal and conservative so that liberals are advocates of big, interventionist government, while conservatives are... Well, that is where the modern definition runs into problems, as conservatives are defined as a rather confusing blend of protectionist "paleo-cons", authoritarian social conservatives, neo-mercantilist "Rockefeller Republicans", semi-liberal "compassionate conservatives" and small government "economic conservatives".³  Granted, every political movement has its share of extremists, fringe elements and outright cranks, but conservatives under the present system truly are ill-defined, and basically serve to lump together everything that can't be described as liberal.

However, I have written about that topic before, so there is no need to revisit it. Instead, I would like to examine another pair of concepts which are very important to many modern policies, both liberal and conservative, but which I intend to argue divide matters by the wrong set of distinctions, as there existed a much better distinction in the past, and one which provided a much more meaningful way to distinguish matters, providing a better foundation for laws.

To be specific, the question is where the line is drawn between areas where the government should legislate and the areas where it should not. In modern times, this line has been drawn based largely on the distinction between "public" and "private". For example, discrimination laws began by applying only to government agencies and those receiving government contracts, but as time went on, the definitions began to broaden until the laws came to basically follow the public/private distinction which characterizes so much of modern law⁴. It is not exactly clear⁵, relying mostly on the "know it when I see it" concept⁶ to define what is public and what is private, but it seems most individuals believe it is clear enough that few objections are voiced.

However, this perspective has several problems. First, as mentioned already, it is an ill-defined distinction, the line dividing public and private is not quite as clear as many imagine. However, that is secondary to the much bigger issue, the fact that using this distinction effectively grants the government unlimited scope. After all, private is only private so long as it is impotent. The minute you act on your private beliefs, or share them with others, you risk having them defined as public, and your actions falling within the scope of the government. Granted, the government often allows matters to remain private which could be defined as public, but that is only because the government is not yet interested in those matters⁷. Following the public/private distinction strictly there is no real limit to what falls within the scope of government authority.

Then there is the final issue. When the government assumes responsibility and oversight for everything public, there really is no room for any other solution. We tend to see every problem in terms of government. Every problem is a government problem, which requires a government solution. There is little room for private collective action, anything public is, by default, seen as being governmental. And, since the government might involve itself in anything public, that position makes sense.⁸

The alternative, the common approach of eras past, was to distinguish, not between public and private, but between state and social. State matters were strictly delimited and were the sole province of the government, while social matters were those issues, public or private, outside the scope of government, where collective action was voluntary and control was exercised by social approval or disapproval of actions. It was the realm of voluntary actions and associations, free of coercive actions.

And it is to this state and social dichotomy I think we should return, as a substitute for the public-private distinction we now have. Public and private is meaningless, simply because something involves two individuals, or perhaps unrelated individuals, or the "general public" -- however one defines "public" -- in no way changes the nature of an action. There is no reason to rely upon such distinctions. The number involved in an event, the openness or concealment of an action do not change its nature. And thus, we should judge whether the government should involve itself by some means rather than simple "public or private".

Nor is this simply another plea for limited government dressed in another guise. Yes, I admit the "state" realm would likely be limited to the protection of rights and the peaceful adjudication of civil disputes, but that is not the sole benefit. There is much to be gained form restoring more and more of our lives to the "social" realm. When we lose the public-private dichotomy we gain much.

For example, even among conservatives, there is a tendency to see "public" issue sin terms of government, to imagine that issues such as social decay, declining standards of behavior,  licentiousness,  and other cultural ills are to be solved by the state. And in that way conservatives tend to argue for larger government without realizing it, surrendering the high ground to the left, who is more consistent in their big government beliefs^9,10. If we move from seeing "public" and "private" as the sole distinctions, we can then address societal ills as social problems, not needing government solutions, but rather needing social solutions. Of course, if the government is actually promoting a position which is harmful (or helpful for that matter0 it will need to stop doing so, but other than getting out of the way, there is nothing for government to do, it is a matter entirely for social pressure to resolve.

Similarly, when problems arise needing collective action, there is a tendency to try to hand it to a governmental group, we no longer believe in private groups. If education is needed, and people cannot afford it, rather than taking a collection and founding a private charitable school, instead we force collection via the state and then allow the state to run a coercive school. It costs as much or more, and employs the same people as the private school would -- in other words, anything which can be done by the state can be done privately, and probably cheaper and better -- but we no longer think in those terms. But once we get rid of the absurd public-private distinction, it seems likely the change of perspective might give us also a change of heart, allowing us to think again of solving matters privately, rather than turning to the state.

I could say more, but for now I just wanted to bring up this topic, as i have every intention of touching upon it in a future chapter of my series "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences", so I don't want to ruin too much of the surprise here. Still, it is interesting enough I couldn't wait to reach the proper chapter, so I decided to offer up a small examination of the issue here.

========================================================

1. Sometimes this can lead to errors when there is a correlation between the variable used to define the poles and another variable which is truly responsible. For example, let us say that generally unintelligent people have unintelligent children. It is easy to look at that and argue for a genetic factor in intelligence. However, let us imagine intelligence depends upon childhood stimulation of the intellect. Unintelligent parents are far less likely to do so, and so they would have unintelligent children without a genetic element. Similarly, many division using simplistic dualities can create misleading correlations. (See also "Correlation vs. Causation" and "Correlation and Causation Revisted".)

2. I discussed this particular error in "Liberalism's False Dichotomy", "A Nonsensical Debate" and "Gardasil and Logical Errors".

3. See my essay "The Political Spectrum". Details can also be found in "A Passing Thought", "The Best Historical Example" and "Rethinking the Scopes Trial".

4. This distinction seems to have originated in the civil law, more than criminal or administrative law. For example, shopping malls were held to fairly high standards on the premise that they were acting as, in effect, very small local governments. That sort of basic concept eventually moved into the criminal and administrative law, and the distinction between public and private came to be enshrined in all areas of government.

5. For example, a restaurant cannot deny anyone service base don race, while who is or is not invited to a private dinner is not subject to review. However, what if the dinner party asks guests to "chip in" for food? And what if a private dinner party charges guests a fixed cost per seat? At what point does private become public? (I first noticed this bizarre subterfuge years ago in some southern cities where clubs got around onerous liquor laws by claiming to be "private clubs", but giving memberships to everyone what asked. And, a few years later, in Baltimore, an acquaintance got around the mandatory 2 AM bar closing time by calling his establishment a private party, and through this open deception managing to run an after hours drinking establishment from 2 AM to 6 AM every night.)

6. I discussed the problems with this Potter Stewart quote and the philosophy it embodies in my posts "The Problem of Pornography", "The Danger Inherent in Banning "Bad Ideas"" and "The Politics of Psychiatry" (as well as similarly problematic statements from Oliver Wendell Holmes in "I Knew I Was On To Something"), as well as in my posts on common sense ("The Lunacy of "Common Sense"", ""Seems About Right", Another Lesson in Common Sense and Its Futility", "A Look at Common Sense", "Res Ipsa Loquitur").

7. A perfect example are those who work from home. For most of our history, those who worked form home were exempted from OSHA regulations and other workplace restrictions. However, as working from home and telecommuting became more prevalent, OSHA took an action which almost killed the possibility of working from home when they suggested that employers would be responsible for injuries in the home from those telecommuting. This trial balloon vanished pretty quickly, but definitely set back telecommuting for a number of years, as the fear that the government might regulate "workplace safety" for telecommuters was terribly frightening to employers.

8. See "Volunteer Fireman, Barn Raisings and Government" and "Collective Action and Government". I discuss something similar in other posts as well, such as "In Praise of Contracts", "How the Government Corrupts Relationships", "The End of Private Action", "Greed Versus Evil" and ""...Then Who Would Do it?"".

9. This self-defeating behavior is discussed in countless posts, most notably "How Conservatives Defeat Themselves", "Defending Freedom?", "Why We Lose", "Giving Away the Game", "The Single Greatest Weakness",  "What We Deserve", "What is Wrong with Us", "Pyrrhic Victories", "Who Is To Blame?", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "The Difficulty of Principle", "Damn the Torpedoes!","You Lose When You Think You Win", "Politicians and Economic Ignorance", "Who Will Decide", "The Wrong People", "The Right People, The Wrong People and "Just Plain Folks"", "Why Freedom Is Essential ", "Of Wheat and Doctors" and  "The Wrong Solution to Bureaucracy ".

10. I do agree that there are many problems with our current social environment ("Faux "Maturity"","Pushing the Envelope", "I Blame the Romantics", "The Adoration of Youth", "All Life in a Day, or, How Our Mistaken View of History Distorts Our Understanding of Events", "Juvenile Intellectuals", "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Deadly Cynicism", "Trophy Spouses", "Cranky Old Man?", "O Tempora! O Mores!, or, The High Cost of Supposed Freedom") But I do not believe the state should play a role in remedying those problems. Granted, the state should not endorse and promote those ills, but it also should not promote the opposite side either. The state needs simply to stay out of the way and allow the public to implement a social solution through private action. Various groups can adopt their own preferred social norms, and also refuse to interact with those who adopt norms they find troubling, or show displeasure over certain choices. In the end, society will eventually settle on one or more acceptable, functional solutions, though those who disagree are free to ignore them, provided they don't mind the consequences. And that is how we can resolve social problems without granting excessive power to the state, violating individual rights or imposing behaviors on individuals against their wills. (And before someone offers a strawman argument, I exclude from this "imposing behaviors" the requirement to not violate the rights of others. That is a proper governmental function. All other impositions are not.)

================================================================

POSTSCRIPT

The description of this topic in  "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences" will likely take place n Chapter 14, where I discuss the consequences of liberalism in general. I plan to discuss how the private-public distinction allows the illusion of still leaving some freedom of conscience to the public, as they can do as they wish "in private", while providing a rationale for the dividing line, as "public" acts "effect others" and so are open to government intervention. But, rather than describe the entire discussion here, I think I will just suggest readers wait until I post that chapter, which will hopefully be sometime late this week, since I hope to post Chapter 13 in the next two days.