I somehow feel there lacks a distinction what concerns understandings of the words "commons"... "public"... and "state".
By "public authorities", i guess we mean "state" , but what do we mean by "state" ?
I already went through a short exchange on this topic with Michel,... but not sure if there is a consensus.
I like Michel using the term "mediation" ,
and building on this word, I ask myself if "a state" is a set of "protocols" set and used to maintain mediation between dominant social agents;
"monetary systems" being one of such dominant protocols.
Is such state ( public authority ) really public ?
What makes "public" in "public authority" ? Transparency ? Accountability ?
...What I often see is "property controlled by authority".
A draft definition I feel like using for "state" :
A "state" may be, according to the context, a "node" through which decision making mediation can happen between various intertwining dominant social relations,
to set "protocols"
"protocols" which in turn can contribute in maintaining such "states of contextual state" through which dominant social relations can maintain mediation to defend their interests.
Yet, when these protocols do not, or can not apply to other "contextual states enabling mediation between social relations" , these other contextual states that can create their own protocols to maintain their own interests will become parallel "states".
Are commons defined relative to individual context ? Are there "common public commons" ( the ocean ? ), and "private public commons" ( a public university library ? ) ?
Is "public" relative to individual context... ?
How are these terminologies used ?
Are these terminologies sometimes confused with each other ?
If yes, why ? and for what purpose ?