“…most people have stopped believing and acting on the basis of democracy, the public, because as things stand, these are just masks, inappropriate words…”
Public and private are obviously two very old concepts of genesis and use varied. Sara therefore clear that in the discussion that we can not propose here, whatever happens, explain in full the two concepts. But we can examine you groped for the analysis of these idols and see the shards of reality and truth that they evolve.
As suggested by the etymology, Public derived directly from the Populus (latin), the People and therefore signifies of the People (source). Turn derives from the People pol-pul-us (lat) which literally translates as put together (source). In the more general value, therefore we can define what is public of everyone and for all.
Private derives from privus (single, only) and therefore of the individual (source).
We note that private is in the latins lenguages the past gerund of the verb privare which means to separate, isolate, deny, subtract, take to somebody what he have, to prevent others to have one thing that they want (source).
In general terms, public and private are in analogy with the concepts of universal and particular, and this is as simple as forgotten.
Often these days we forget to see that simple things have useful implications for explaining the plots of social phenomena (and world phenomena in general).
We enter the terrain of the political philosophy of this subject, which is unfounded the ultimate goal of this article. The advent of private companies, known as corporations, especially in the XIX and XX century, is accompanied by the establishment of a global system of government called democracy. However, remembering the scenarios that we had to assist in the XX and XXI (wars, looting, corruption, lies, systematic crisis, …), is for us, today as yesterday, impossible to believe that the society where we today live might be called democratic. Interference that private capital played in democratic governments, by the mere fact that it occurred, falsify the existence of a democracy; giving citizenship to corporations (groups of private capital), creating these fictitious individuals, not-people called legal personality automatically have deleted the citizenship of the real people, those individuals who the liberalist said to be so important for they. If means govern of the people then we can’t call democracy the government of the masks, the corporations behind which There’s individual persons who, consciously or unconsciously, did not have care about humanity, their peers, but only their own selfish interests.
Finally I want to claim a point that is the most pernicious consequences of the mask of democracy, a functional result of the Corporationcracy or Privatecracy: most people have stopped believing and acting on the basis of democracy, the public, because as things stand, these are just masks, inappropriate words. Democracy has not yet ruled on the planet, so Give her a chance, make this concept a reality: democracy is not born yet, in addition to being conceptualized, as humans, the democracy must be brought forth, alimented and educated to live!
This article comes as a deepening of the previous article that I invite you to read: Philosophy OpenSource.
… Global and Local concepts are very important for the direction that has taken this voyage and will certainly object of coming treatments …
What do YOU think? leave a comment 
See You Soon!
Popularity: 8% [?]
Related posts:
Interessanti punti di vista e piattaforma per un dialogo su questi temi che piu’ che mai sono attuali e riportano concetti ormai dimenticati o fatti dimenticare.
Penso che i concetti espressi sulle “corporations” siano chiave, le sue influenze sui rappresentati politici, pertanto la sua ingerenza e gestione delle agende politiche che si tramutano immediatamente in azioni economiche tattiche ed strategiche, sono di difficile e talvolta impossibile modificazione o cambio.
Come allora gli individui, uomini/popolo (donna e uomo), lavoratori, studenti e tutti quelli che siamo “sotto” o dipendiamo dei sistemi ormai imposti o definiti, possiamo e dobbiamo difendere.
La democrazia e’ un mezzo che ci porta alla elezioni di rappresentati che un domani faranno delle cose per definire o modificare un sistema sociale, pertanto e’ qua dove bisogna tornare, a come si usa o si partecipa veramente (se non partecipi -> hai partecipato) come il popolo può e deve partecipare; magari con piccoli passi in piccoli gruppo d’interesse.
Pertanto credo che il cambio venga dal basso e non crediamoci impotenti su questo punto. Un altro meccanismo alla nostra portata per difenderci dalle “corporations”, in attesa del prossimo voto democratico, e’ nelle piccole azioni quotidiane: cosa compriamo, cosa mangiamo, cosa leggiamo, con chi parliamo, insegnare qualcosa a qualcuno che lo possa migliorare subito o dopo; qua inizia tutto.
Per arrivare a raggiungere dimensioni “Global” sempre bisogna partire dal “Local”, noi stessi e quelli che stano accanto a noi.
Auguro di poter continuare su questi discorsi e dialoghi.
Saluti y hasta siempre.
je suis d’accord avec toi.
tu peux lire de Elinor Ostrom (Prix Nobel de l’économie 2009), elle est connue pour ses travaux sur la gestion collective des biens communs et elle a fait des études pour montrer que la collectivité peut gérer de manière économiquement optimale des biens communs. Une partie du problème est la rationalité des biens communs et leur surexploitation par les individus parce que il n’y a encore une culture de Open Source…