Do libraries serve a purpose anymore?

[Crafter_Man]

I'm not talking about university libraries... I'm talking about community public libraries.

Why are we spending tax dollars to support them? What purpose do they serve?

Books are cheap and plentiful; just about anything in print can be procured via amazon.com.

The last time I went to a public library was last year. I was with my kids, and we were killing time. The only activities I witnessed were 1) People renting movies, and 2) people surfing the Internet.

I say... get rid of community public libraries. They don't serve much of a purpose anymore. For the few functions that might be considered valuable (e.g. maintaining historical documents), let a private institution take over those tasks.

[Freudian Slit]

I read a lot of stuff, and I definitely don't want to purchase everything I read--I'd have way too much stuff. And it seems like they're way too expensive. Sometimes you can get good stuff used, but not always, especially if it's newer.

Anyway, I still get books from the library, and I'm pretty sure lots of people do. It would be an awful thing to get rid of them.

[Indistinguishable]

Originally Posted by Crafter_Man

Books are cheap and plentiful; just about anything in print can be procured via amazon.com.

They're not that cheap... it's still easily possible to want to read a book but not have it be reasonably worth purchasing and waiting for.

[Suse]

Not everyone can afford to purchase all the books they want, but with an inter-library loan system you can get nearly all of them for free. Some of us like to look at a book before we purchase it, perhaps even read it first.

And trying the new movie or latest CD? I'm not buying unless I know we will like it, and our local video store has been closed for 6 months and we have no idea when/if they will reopen.

There is a great need for libraries, and I would definitely be against eliminating them in Ohio (or anywhere).

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Crafter_Man

Books are cheap and plentiful

No they're not. Books are plentiful precisely because there are libraries. And the only place I've seen cheap books are at a library book sale. And while Amazon is wonderful, what about people who don't have Internet access? One of the few places they can get online for free is at the library.

And what's wrong with movies? They're just a form of media, just like books. Inherently no better and no worse. Only the most ancient and out-of-touch patron/librarian thinks movies don't belong in libraries.

Finally, library usage goes way up in times of financial crisis precisely because people are looking for a cheap outlaw for entertainment and information. Not to mention the dozen or so people I will help Monday and every day after with their resumes.

[Vox Imperatoris]

No, they don't, and I don't support them even if they did.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[brickbacon]

Plenty of people use the library. You'd be surprised how many people don't have reliable internet access or access to books. Books are still expensive. Most people can't afford books on a regular basis.

[Lsura]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

Finally, library usage goes way up in times of financial crisis precisely because people are looking for a cheap outlaw for entertainment and information. Not to mention the dozen or so people I will help Monday and every day after with their resumes.

Absolutely - This MSNBC video hit the library blogs recently - I was lazy about looking for one on the msnbc site - but I have seen this mentioned on other library blogs about the increase in usage.

Libraries serve a purpose beyond books. Your location says you're in Ohio. That means you have access to the Ohio Web Library. This gives you 24 hour access to librarians who can help you or your children with questions. It also gives citizens access to (from within the library and outside) a number of proprietary databases that have articles and information that are not available on the free web. Not the least of these is Learning Express Library - which offers free practice tests for everything from the PSAT to the ASVAB to the GMAT to Firefighter and Police exams.

Beyond books: that internet access is important. A lot of U.S. government information is no longer available in print - the library I work at, while a depository library, receives the majority of it's government documents as electronic, internet accessible items, not physical items. In order to have an informed populace, this information needs to be available. And has been said, there are still a lot of people in this country who do not have internet access at home - there is a huge digital divide.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Vox Imperatoris

No, they don't, and I don't support them even if they did.

Coming from someone who uses Latin so freely on these boards, that's surprising. Care to explain why, this is Great Debates after all.

Oh, and re the digital divide. I liken it to this board's dedication to Tivo. Whenever someone mentions missing a show in a Cafe Society thread or saying that their VCR is on the fritz, dozens of people will come out of the woodwork, shocked that this poor soul doesn't have a Tivo. But only 20% of TV owners have a DVR of some kind. While the numbers for broadband Internet are a little better (60% of all Internet users last time I checked), to say that the Internet is as ubiqutious as it is is only because of library access.

[LVBoPeep]

Books may be plentiful, but I would not call them cheap. I recently began taking advantage of our community library system and I have been amazed at what is available. All free. I have access to research, the internet/computer use if my computer dies (library saved my butt during NanoWriMo). After wasting countless dollars on crappy books, I went through a two year period where I pretty much just re-read the books I already had. Now that books are free, I go through a new book or two per week. LOVE the library, hope it is never eliminated.

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

I'll keep it short:

1. Out of print books
2. Owning books can be a pain (shelves space and moving home, anyone?)
3. Dictionary, Atlases, Encyelopdia and other references
4. Free books encourage reading
5. Library is more than just about books. Story-telling, book talks, etc.
6. Library is a communal place for activities, exhibitions, seminar, workshops etc.
7. Common computer access
8. Books are cheap? Since...?
9. Libraries protect books. Librarians rarely spill coffee over them and wrap them with covering and all sort of other etc.
10. Libraries organise information. It's a central place to get what you need; the cataloging system ensures you know where to find what you need
11. Newspaper and magazines backlog. Try storing 10 years of Times/National Geographics in your own home.
12. Microfilms, archive services etc.
13. Some place to leave your kids at (preferably at the children's section. But please don't use the library as a nursery)
14. Journals, research papers and other things you can't find at Borders or on Amazon.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

Coming from someone who uses Latin so freely on these boards, that's surprising. Care to explain why, this is Great Debates after all.

Simple. I believe the government should be kept as small as possible (as it is inherently inefficient), and libraries are an unnecessary expansion of government influence. I have similar views about public schools, although I am open to the possibility of government-issued vouchers, since children are a special case under the law (but I really don't want to turn this into an education debate).

Also, libraries are most definitely not free. The free market can do the exact same thing, but much more efficiently.

[Little Nemo]

Simple. I believe the government should be kept as small as possible (as it is inherently inefficient), and libraries are an unnecessary expansion of government influence. I have similar views about public schools, although I am open to the possibility of government-issued vouchers, since children are a special case under the law (but I really don't want to turn this into an education debate).

Also, libraries are most definitely not free. The free market can do the exact same thing, but much more efficiently.

Free markets don't exist in an uneducated society. What you'll end up with in a society that gives people only the education they can afford is a small hereditary aristocracy that educates its own children and a majority of serfs that can't and don't.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Vox Imperatoris

Also, libraries are most definitely not free. The free market can do the exact same thing, but much more efficiently.

No, it can't and won't. There's no profit in offering books and Internet access and such free of charge. There's any number of things that the government does better than private industry; often things private industry would have no desire to do at all.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Vox Imperatoris

Simple. I believe the government should be kept as small as possible (as it is inherently inefficient), and libraries are an unnecessary expansion of government influence. I have similar views about public schools, although I am open to the possibility of government-issued vouchers, since children are a special case under the law (but I really don't want to turn this into an education debate).

Also, libraries are most definitely not free. The free market can do the exact same thing, but much more efficiently.

Private libraries created by the free market most certainly exist, but they are by no means more complete or useful than public libraries (which are roughly funded by a few dollars from each person's tax bill). A private library also frequently requires a heavy fee that the most needy library users would not be able to pay.

Also, you overstate the "government influence" of libraries. In New York state, public libraries MUST be kept separate from governmental departments (it's in the public library charter issued by the Board of Education). Librarians are essentially on their own after the government hands over the budget check.

ETA: Netflix and Gamefly could be considered private libraries in the sense that they offer unlimited "free" movies and video games after the monthly fee. Subscribing to just those two services would require $400 a year. A huge outlay compared to a person's taxed contribution to a public library.

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

As a child and teenager, I spent a lot of time at the library. When I went to community college, I used it as a quiet place to study and work on reports. Recently, I've rediscovered the pleasure of a library, and have been plowing through books at a pace that would put a severe hurting on my disposable income if I had to BUY them.

Many ppl don't make use of the library, it's true. In the neighborhood of my childhood, there were never more than two ppl working there at a time - usually just one - and the total number of ppl in the library never exceeded what I could count on my fingers. I'm happy to say that, in my current town, my local branch is hopping with activity every time I'm there.

I haven't always made use of the library, but I'm damn glad I had it when I wanted or needed it. We didn't have much money when I was growing up, and it made a difference to me.

[Mangetout]

In the UK, libraries are mildly proactive in promoting a general improvement in standards of literacy - there are people, especially the urban poor, for whom the price of books* is the deciding factor between having and not having them. Books are a luxury item taking second place to potatoes.

And I think a very reasonable case can be made that an improvement in literacy is just the sort of thing that governments should be legitimately concerned with - because it has effects that ripple out into employment, community cohesion, crime prevention, etc.

Whilst I'm certain it would be technically possible for private enterprise to support some kind of library service, I don't believe it would ever turn out to be as good as state-run libraries, because of the quite considerable variety of externalities, which government entities should encompass and care about, but private enterprise would consider none of their concern.
(In fact, I have made the same argument in the past about the BBC, not that it's necessarily doing a brilliant job at the moment)

*(even if they were really cheap on Amazon, etc, which I don't actually agree they are. You can't get cheaper than 'free')

[Sampiro]

If you consider $20-$30 for most hardback books for somebody who reads several books per month cheap, "te salud Don Corleone". Even if I were a lot wealthier I'd rather borrow the books from a library when I didn't feel I'd want to keep them and use the cash for something else (dining out if you feel like it or IRA if you're more responsible than I am).

Then there's the whole "library as space" issue.

[don't ask]

Anyone who doesn't support public libraries has never been truly poor. For a time living in London my wife and I had a budget of breakfast cereal, one pint of milk, half a loaf of bread, one shared packet of cigarettes and two cans of soup a day. We couldn't even afford to use the tube.

All that kept us sane and happy were the two local libraries, free to air radio and free to air TV.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

*(even if they were really cheap on Amazon, etc, which I don't actually agree they are. You can't get cheaper than 'free')

Services provided by the government and paid for by taxes are not "free". Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of public libraries, but don't pretend they're something they're not.

[Shakester]

I grew up poor, and attended a terrible school.

I'm self educated, basically, and I owe it all to libraries. I'm still fairly poor, and I still read library books almost exclusively.

My feelings towards anyone who would threaten the existence of public libraries are inappropriate for a public forum, so I will not try to express them. Just don't make any such statement within throwing distance of me, or without a good running head start.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Grumman

Services provided by the government and paid for by taxes are not "free". Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of public libraries, but don't pretend they're something they're not.

Again, the average tax outlay per person for a public library is a few dollars a year. Pretending that libraries make up some significant portion of government money is a joke.

[even sven]

Just because you don't use the library doesn't mean that nobody does. Go to a good healthy urban library- one with decent hours and a decent location. The Oakland main branch library was always packed.

Anyway, books are not particularly cheap. Minimum wage is $6.75. That means a single book can easily cost a half day's work. I can burn through a book pretty easy in a night or two. There is no way for a fast reader on a tight budget to have reasonably free access to written information. When I was broke, I'd go to the library every week. I had a job where I could read at work, and so I'd pull out dozens of books at a time. I could never, ever do that on my own.

Also there are times when it is useful to read books but not have any good need to own them. I went through a phase where I read every book ever written about resume writing. I'll never ever need to read those books again, but I am eternally grateful that I had access to them.

Beyond that, there is the whole host of other functions libraries serve that others have mentioned. I think libraries are probably one of the MOST useful public institutions. They don't cost a lot to run and they can directly make a neighborhood a better place for its citizens.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

Again, the average tax outlay per person for a public library is a few dollars a year. Pretending that libraries make up some significant portion of government money is a joke.

I just checked. In my town it comes out to $29 per person per year. Basically, the price of two trade paperbacks gives the town (and the surrounding county) access to thousands of books, movies, CDs, audiobooks, magazines, reference databases, Internet access, video games, storytimes, reading clubs, word processing access and the staff's knowledge on almost any subject (if you want to cheat at a crossword, the library is perfect for that).

[GuanoLad]

It seems a poor practice to think things should be shut down just because you can't conceive a purpose for them.

I say only shut them down when they aren't being used anymore, and as far as I know libraries are still very popular. Maybe not quite as much as they once were, but then again perhaps even that's a flawed assumption.

I haven't used a library in about 10 years.

[don't ask]

Well, as to GuanoLad's last post, I am a member of 3 libraries and cannot recall ever going to one without other people being there.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by GuanoLad

I say only shut them down when they aren't being used anymore, and as far as I know libraries are still very popular. Maybe not quite as much as they once were, but then again perhaps even that's a flawed assumption.

Circulation and usage numbers for all of the libraries in my county system are higher than they've ever been. Other librarians across the country report similar rises in popularity.

[panache45]

I can't count the number of times I needed a book just once, and never again. My house already holds more books than I know what to do with. If I had to buy every book I read, or read part of, I'd have to eat the books, to make room for more.

[CaptMurdock]

I don't have the space I once had, so having tons of books is no longer an option. The library is a wonderful substitute.

Plus, out-of-print books: I managed to find a copy of Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men. This copy had to be almost as old as my mother (and I'm forty-four!)

Yes, Amazon is an alternative, as you can buy cheap, used books...still, you never know what you are getting until you get it in your hands. You could be paying $5.00 plus S&H for loose pages glued together...

[gonzomax]

I can get the books I want for free. How bad can that be.
I wanted to read Grants autobiography. They put out a notice to the chain of libraries and found a copy. They had it shipped to my library and they emailed me when it came in.
I watch cspan 2 on weekends. They have book tv. When I see one that interests me I can get it at my library.
They also have computer access . It is hard to believe that a lot of people do not have a computer at home. They can send emails and apply for jobs there.Whats not to love?

[Guinastasia]

You'll get my library card when you take it from my cold, dead hands. You can't count the number of brand new, expensive hardbacks I check out from our local library system. If I had to buy every one of them, I'd go broke.

And as others said, there are so many rare and out-of-print books that I'd NEVER find elsewhere.

Again, you'll take my library card when you take it from my cold, dead, hands. Andrew Carnegie is rolling in his grave at this thread!

[sailor]

I have recently been spending many hours in the public libraries in Arlington, VA. They have books and computers. There seemed to be more people there for the use of the computers than books although I suppose people check the books out but have to use the computer on the premises. I saw quite a few people using the computer for job searches and for homework and similar work (word processing etc.) . I believe the community investment in helping these people who are reading books or who are trying to improve their situation is well worth the cost. Some people, like myself, brought our own laptops but used the wireless internet access.

The library also provided a large hall or meeting room where I suppose community acts could take place.

I also saw too many noisy children and parents and staff who would not keep them in check. If there is going to be a children's play area it should be in another room so patrons are not disturbed. I would propose a minimum age limit to enter a public library. Babies and infants do not belong there as they gain nothing and disturb the other patrons.

[IdahoMauleMan]

Originally Posted by GuanoLad

It seems a poor practice to think things should be shut down just because you can't conceive a purpose for them.

I say only shut them down when they aren't being used anymore, and as far as I know libraries are still very popular. Maybe not quite as much as they once were, but then again perhaps even that's a flawed assumption.

I haven't used a library in about 10 years.

It seems a poor practice to think you should be able to take someone else's money, by force, for something they don't want to support just because you can conceive a purpose for that money.

[ivylass]

I use the library to try out new books. If I like them enough to know I will reread them, I'll go buy them.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by Grumman

Services provided by the government and paid for by taxes are not "free". Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of public libraries, but don't pretend they're something they're not.

I'm not pretending anything - to the consumers I was speaking of - the urban poor (many of whom are receive tax and monetary benefits and income supplements from the state already), libraries are free - they can walk in and take home books without being parted from any of their cash. They're free at point of delivery.

Sure, they're paid for by other taxpayers, but, speaking as one of those taxpayers, I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement.

I'm also not particularly convinced that removing libraries would translate to a measurable tax reduction - the released funds would quite likely be absorbed by some other worthy cause.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

It seems a poor practice to think you should be able to take someone else's money, by force, for something they don't want to support just because you can conceive a purpose for that money.

You may not wish to support libraries, but they still benefit you because they serve to improve society - of which you are (well, I suppose you are) a part.

You may resent this decision being made for you, but that's why you elected a government.

[Procyon]

It's unlikely that anyone outside the Philadelphia area is aware of it, but this exact issue of the value of libraries is a raging firestorm around here. In short, the city is facing a huge budgetary shortfall and part of the mayor's plan to bridge the gap is the closing of, among other things, 11 of the 54 branches of the public library. He has taken a huge -- with a capital H -- amount of grief for this, much more for the libraries than for the public pools and fire houses that will also be shut down as part of the plan.

The debate here makes me think that anyone who attempted to enact an absolute free-market policy of "no public libraries," as articulated by some people in this thread, wouldn't get very far. Supporters of the library closings are not, by and large, arguing that libraries are a waste of money, but that our current number of branches was intended to support a city of a larger population (which Philly has had in the past) and that if you close a branch, it's not really that bad if there's another one a couple miles away. Asserting we should wholly privatize book lending and free internet (among the other functions of libraries) would likely be political suicide.

On the other hand, I don't really agree with the sentiment expressed here that libraries are particularly cheap. The branch closings in Philly are expected to save the city around 8 million dollars per year. Small potatoes compared to AIG's bailout, but when you're staring down a shrinking population, decreased income, and a fiscal shortfall, I think that number is fairly significant.

[Jesse Leigh]

Originally Posted by Crafter_Man

I'm not talking about university libraries... I'm talking about community public libraries.

Why are we spending tax dollars to support them? What purpose do they serve?

Books are cheap and plentiful; just about anything in print can be procured via amazon.com.

The last time I went to a public library was last year. I was with my kids, and we were killing time. The only activities I witnessed were 1) People renting movies, and 2) people surfing the Internet.

I say... get rid of community public libraries. They don't serve much of a purpose anymore. For the few functions that might be considered valuable (e.g. maintaining historical documents), let a private institution take over those tasks.

Education is important and should be readily available to everyone.

Public libraries buy most new books and as an author I appreciate the sales. Not everyone can afford the Internet, or to buy a book from *anywhere,* so public libraries serve a useful function. My kids, before they were married, frequently checked out AND READ five or six books a week on a continuous basis. I'm uncertain what their habits are now but we're all voracious readers in our family.

Public libraries also have an extensive collection of reference books, many of which would cost an individual hundreds of dollars to buy. They usually have at least a decade's worth of National Geographic (Popular Science, and other publications) you can read on site while you're there.

My kids attended 'story hour' at public libraries anytime we were near a city large enough to have one, and they loved it, as well as the children's section which helped them to *want* to learn to read.

I'd far rather do away with public schools than public libraries, it'd save more tax dollars and children would have access to a much better comprehensive education.

FWIW - Jesse.

[smithsb]

I too have a problem with libraries, museums, historical society buildings, and the like. Several (many) years ago, my home town (Huntsville, AL) went out and built a new library and a new museum. They should have been combined in one building. It would have enriched both sets of patrons, saved on building, utility, and maintenance expense, and offered the opportunity for joint coordinated exhibits.

Do them together, dammit.

[Bryan Ekers]

Without libraries, how will our civilizations compete? Our cities will be overrun with tanks while we can only defend with phalanxes phalanxi phalanxeses spearmen!

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Vox Imperatoris

Also, libraries are most definitely not free. The free market can do the exact same thing, but much more efficiently.

Please explain how the free market would give people free unlimited access to information, and culture.

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by Vox Imperatoris

Simple. I believe the government should be kept as small as possible (as it is inherently inefficient), and libraries are an unnecessary expansion of government influence. I have similar views about public schools, although I am open to the possibility of government-issued vouchers, since children are a special case under the law (but I really don't want to turn this into an education debate).

Also, libraries are most definitely not free. The free market can do the exact same thing, but much more efficiently.

A private library would be roughly the same as Blockbuster. Many, many copies of the books on the New York Times bestseller list and little, if any, older stuff. After all, it's what the public wants, right?

Last year, I worked my way through the Left Behind series. It would not have been possible without my local library. For one thing, buying all of the books would have been cost-prohibitive, even used. For another, there were some books I would have had to buy new and I didn't want to support the authors. In that respect, it's no different from wanting to read Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter's latest screeds. The library has paid for it so I don't have to.

Robin

[IdahoMauleMan]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

You may not wish to support libraries, but they still benefit you because they serve to improve society - of which you are (well, I suppose you are) a part.

You may resent this decision being made for you, but that's why you elected a government.

No, it's not.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

It seems a poor practice to think you should be able to take someone else's money, by force, for something they don't want to support just because you can conceive a purpose for that money.

So your political philosophy is so greedy and cold hearted it'd vote to strip the poor of access to information and chances to better their life to save a couple dollars?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

No, it's not.

Yes it is. Taxes are the fee you pay to live in our society. Don't like it? Move. You live here then you pay to help maintain it.

[IdahoMauleMan]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

So your political philosophy is so greedy and cold hearted it'd vote to strip the poor of access to information and chances to better their life to save a couple dollars?

My political philosophy is devoid of, and is in no way connected to, assumptions of personal intent on the part of its citizens. No one needs to divine whether or not a citizen is

'Greedy'
'Cold hearted'
...etc. etc

in order to enact (or better yet, repeal) legislation. Or decide whether or not they are worthy of keeping their own hard-earned money.

If you think public access to information is a great way to improve the lot of the poor and needy, great. Fantastic. Knock yourself out. Go volunteer at the library, donate money to a local library foundation, improve the poor's access to the Internet, newspapers and other sources. Whatever you want.

And try and convince me to do the same. Because I happen to believe you. I might join you and volunteer. I might write a check to help you. I might join the Board and get involved in fund-raising efforts just like you. Wouldn't that be great? We could work together to raise funds to build a library, or free access to the Internet, or whatever we think (along with our donors) is the best way to accomplish our goals.

My political philosophy is based on the rule of law. Not the rule of judgement on someone else's intent. Because the latter is irrelevant.

Your kneejerk reaction of attacking someone's 'intent and goodness quotient', in response to a generic reaction I made a few posts above, is typical of the posters on this Board.

I made no comment about whether or not I think libraries are good. Or bad. Or are operated efficiently. Or not. Or whether I would like them to go away or continue to multiple.

I made a generic comment about how someone sort-of assumed the present state of taxation by government was the accepted standard, and then put the burden of proof on others to explain why they shouldn't have their hard-earned money taken from force and spent by government bureaucrats. Instead of the other way around.

[Musicat]

I am glad we have libraries, but I have some comments about your list.

Originally Posted by CrazyChop

1. Out of print books

Modern libraries, to my dismay, do not retain books that are not checked out, citing space limitations. They claim their reason for existance does not include archiving. My library regularly purges out of print books or ones that get checked out infrequently. Sad but true.

7. Common computer access

Very important in some places. Here's a typical conversation with a friend of mine:

"Let's mail {some important infomation} to all voters."

Me: "Why mail? Just put it on a web page and save stamp money."

"But nobody has Internet access, or if they do, it's only dialup."

"No problem. Just go to the library, where everyone has fast & free access."

11. Newspaper and magazines backlog. Try storing 10 years of Times/National Geographics in your own home.

Our library doesn't store more than 6 months of ANY magazines in paper form, but microfilm (soon to be online computer access only).

Libraries are good, but they have changed over the years. I'd say 80% of all patrons I see at our library are using the Internet. Not many are reading books or papers.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Crafter_Man

I'm not talking about university libraries... I'm talking about community public libraries.

Why are we spending tax dollars to support them? What purpose do they serve?

Books are cheap and plentiful; just about anything in print can be procured via amazon.com.

Books are available on Amazon only if you have money. And a computer at home.

Although I have the later, this past year I have barely been able to pay the rent and buy food (even with a productive garden this summer). I can't afford to buy books. If it were not for my public library I would have no fresh reading material.

I realize you don't see hordes of people sitting around reading in a library... that's because we've checked our books out and taken them home to read.

Judging by the 2-3 wait for some of the new books I've had to queue up for in the past year I'm not the only one getting my fresh reading from the library.

Libraries are also neat in that they frequently have books that aren't in print anymore, and will usually borrow obscure titles from other libraries if they don't have a copy on hand.

[GuanoLad]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

It seems a poor practice to think you should be able to take someone else's money, by force, for something they don't want to support just because you can conceive a purpose for that money.

That's the nature of taxes. There's no way around this. I would say a good 50% of the tax revenue goes on things I don't use or support, but that doesn't mean it should never be supported at all.

If you wish, you can choose to pretend the small percentage of your money that currently goes to libraries can instead be additional revenue for something you do use, like Schools or Emergency Services or whatever.

Libraries provide a useful service. They're still popular. We wouldn't have gotten this far without them. What's the big deal?

[IdahoMauleMan]

Originally Posted by GuanoLad

That's the nature of taxes. There's no way around this. I would say a good 50% of the tax revenue goes on things I don't use or support, but that doesn't mean it should never be supported at all.

If you wish, you can choose to pretend the small percentage of your money that currently goes to libraries can instead be additional revenue for something you do use, like Schools or Emergency Services or whatever.

Libraries provide a useful service. They're still popular. We wouldn't have gotten this far without them. What's the big deal?

How do you know the first three sentences of your last paragraph are correct?