Public vs Private

Etymologically, public comes from the latin publicus "of the people; of the state; done for the state" also "common, general, of or belonging to the people at large; ordinary vulgar" and as a noun, "a commonweallth; public property."

Black's Law defines it as:

PUBLIC, adj. Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community; proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general; open to common use. Morgan v. Creep 46 Vt. 786, 14 Am.Rep. 640; Crane v. Waters, C.C.Mass., 10 F. 621. Belonging to the people at large; relating to or affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community. People v. Powell 280.

In contrast with private which etymologically is:

"from latin privatus "set apart (from what is public), belonging to oneself (not to the state), peculiar, personal" used in contrast to publicus, communis."

And Black's Law defines it as:

PRIVATE. Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public generally. Not official; not clothed with office. People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N.W. 372, 373, 111 A.L. R. 721.

When we know the meaning of "person" in legal terms, a private person, therefore, becomes an oxymoron. How can an entity which belongs to the state be private? Here person can only refer to the man or woman: 

PRIVATE PERSON. An individual who is not the incumbent of an office.

When the State proclaims: "we have a duty to protect the public", who are they referring to with "the public"? Who is that public? It sounds as if it is you and me, but what if the real you and me can only be private? Who will then be that public? Is it the public "thing", perhaps? And if that is the case, who or what comprises the public thing; the res publica? 

I propose the State is correct in using that terminology since it is neither protecting you and me (private beings) but it always protects itself; that public thing is the State itself. The people acting their roles within the "thing" swears to have the duty to protect the thing's system, not the private beings comprising that system. 

However, have the private beings ever been part of the thing's "system"? No. These are two different and separate jurisdictions. The State, the public, can only deal with fictions since itself is a fiction that we all create and sustain. It can only "protect" itself, its members, and its fictional entities, it can never and will never be able to deal with living beings since these two jurisdictions can only be crossed by living beings in their personal (and thus private) capacity.