Mary: Dad, may I go to the park and pick some lilacs off the bushes?
Dad: No, Mary. You may not. The lilac bushes are common property. They belong to everybody, not to you or me. Every taxpayer is entitled to enjoy the scent, but only employees of the Parks Department are allowed to touch them. They are public servants. They planted them. They care for them. Our taxes pay their salaries.
Mary: I see. If they like the scent of the hyacinths in our garden, which you planted, can they come in and enjoy it?
Dad: No, Mary. Our garden is our property. They must ask for permission first.
Mary: Even though they are public servants, and are therefore our servants?
Dad: Yes. Our garden is private property.
Mary: But without them we would not have the lilacs in the park. They planted them for the good of everybody. They should be rewarded.
Dad: Their salaries are their reward.
Mary: I don’t think that’s fair. The lilac bushes in our garden, which you planted, are exactly the same as the lilac bushes in the park. I think the man from the Parks Department who, as you say, works for everybody, is a more valuable citizen than you are. You only plant them for your own and your family’s pleasure.
Dad: No, Mary. He is doing a job for which he is paid, like the letter carrier, or the fire fighter or the mayor. I plant lilac bushes in my garden for the love of it, for my own private pleasure. I can’t think of any law according to which a man who is paid for what he does is more valuable – or, for that matter, less valuable – than a man who does something for the love of it, who volunteers.
Mary: Suppose there were no public lilac bushes in the park, and our private lilac bushes were the only ones in the neighborhood, could we charge people for breathing in the scent?
Dad: That’s a brilliant idea, Mary. I think we could. The only problem is – how would we collect if people thought they were entitled to breathe in the scent for nothing?
Mary: Leave it to me, Dad. I’ll work it out. I have another question. It’s about the flowers in our front yard. Dozens of people walk by them every day. Many of them have told me how much they enjoy them. Is our front yard public property, like the park?
Dad: No, Mary. It belongs to us, like our garden in the back.
Mary: I don’t think it’s fair that people who have made no contribution to the flowers in our front yard enjoy them for nothing.
Dad: Well, then – do something about it.
Mary: I will. In the fall, I will put a collection box in front of the house, with a polite note asking the private citizens passing by every day to say thank you to us by paying a little something for the public service we so generously provide.
Eric Koch’s book, The Weimar Triangle, is available at Indigo-Chapters and in your local bookstore. 
Nobel prize winning economist (1986) James M. Buchanan wrote extensively on public and private goods using examples of public ones such as street lights and private ones, my lunch. He also commented on hybrids such as clubs that share goods but are limited by crowding.
Whether he commented on civil behaviour is another matter.
I wonder whether Buchanan also considered private-public broadcasting – the difficult area that got me interested in the subject.
Interesting, public broadcasting focuses on sharing culture and common values for the purpose of strengthening civic virtue. (Not to be confused with politics or propaganda). Hence it must resemble cough mixture that tastes good.
Private broadcasting just entertains so it can sell ads.
Boy, oh boy, are you ever onto a key topic. And eleven is a good brain age to attend to: Is our social being, as a clump of people, anywhere near as real as our individual beings.
I’m too scared to say what I think.
But am I allowed to say that Mr. Harper’s omnibus crime bill, promised within 100 days, is worth attention because it will destroy privacy of internet communications? And that all Canada’s privacy commissioners have spoken on this, and are being ignored by the current government? There’s more on this at http://voices-voix.ca/en/node/272