+1 Exactly who can’t use public libraries?
Oh yeah?? Well what if you’re a school bus driver who likes to drive on the sidewalk?? What then? Huh?!
Libraries are by their very nature neutral (see the library collection policy discussions I linked to earlier). Equating library funding to these hot button issues seems fairly pointless since it is a small minority indeed that calls for the closure of all public libraries. Even most of those without library cards can see the value in them.
Are you saying you’re so tight fisted and greedy that $27 lousy bucks is as bad as all that to you?
Every day we see the effects of an information shortage. We see what happens when people don’t know or can’t get the information they need. Americans need more access to information, not less. There are few things the government can do half so well as fund public libraries. They are cheap. They benefit everyone, directly or indirectly, and they contribute to a free and informed society.
You’ve made no concrete argument at all. All you have made is a subjective claim about how important, or vital, or how wonderful you’re job is, and how it requires you to take money out of my wallet against my will. Using the local arm of government as an armed agent on your behalf.
If you’re that great at what you do, go sell your services on the private market. You should do just fine. That is the true objective measure of the value of your services…if someone is willing to pay for them. Not whether or not you think you are providing a valuable service, and have to justify expropriating my resources to pay your salary.
But IdahoMauleMan! You’re greedy! You’re cold-hearted! You just don’t want to help people!
We librarians do! We’re just, and pure of motive, and chaste, and we are providing a vital public service out of the goodness of our hearts!
And after all, this is what you’re elected government is supposed to do. If they decide to fund the libraries, that’s the way it goes. Live with it. That’s the way things work, IdahoMauleMan. What’s your problem?
OK. Let’s run with that latter argument for a while. CA just outlawed same-sex marriage by electoral referendum. What’s the consequence? People on this Board go bonkers. There are two active threads, right now, at the top of the Great Debates list wondering why the hell the state has the right to impose this on its citizens. And for good reason. I agree with them.
But when it comes to imposing it’s right to reach into my wallet? To take my hard-earned money? Meh. A dismissive wave of the hand. What’s the big deal? You must be rich, IdahoMauleMan. Or mean. Or greedy. Or one of those kooky, extremist Libertarians.
Get with the program, IdahoMauleMan. And stop complaining about governmental intervention when it comes to taxation for the funding of public libraries. Or public teachers unions. Or capital-gains taxes. Or an auto bailout. Or restrictions on free trade. Or all those other governmental functions you complain about. That’s just the way the system works. Stop complaining.
Now of course, we must never, ever let the state intervene in other areas like same-sex marriage or abortion. Those are too important. But paying for libraries? Sure. That’s a whole different ballgame. I can’t even understand why you’re debating this, IdahoMauleMan. You’re an idiot.
Social issues…government must stay out. Taxation…the more government, the better. They can’t be trusted to make good decisions on the former. But on the latter, of course they can. They must. They will.
Oh and by the way, it’s great to see that a librarian who deals with my children, and my neighbors children, uses the word ‘fuck’ the way you do. Warms my heart every time I pay that $27 a year in taxes. What a great public service you provide.
I have actually used private libraries - which do exist. They are invariably much more restricted in access and in my experience have always required a hefty fee.
Public libraries are open to all, at no charge to the patron at time of use.
Your whine that because you don’t use it you shouldn’t have to support it is ridiculous. When I lived in Chicago I didn’t drive a car for 8 years, yet I still had to pay taxes to support the road system. I’ve never had to call the cops because my house has been broken into, but I still pay taxes for the cops to solve robberies. I’ve never had a house fire, yet I still pay taxes to support the fire department. Collectively our society has decided to use taxes to pay for these things and have them available to all citizens regardless of individual ability to pay. Sometimes, living in civilization requires one to abide by the majority decision, in this case, the majority still think public libraries are a good idea.
Are you really continuing to compare $29 a year to the wholesale discrimination of an entire class of people? Are you willfully obtuse or are you just ducking our questions because you have no good answers?
Finally, there is no way a private library could provide as much as a public library does. I’ve already pointed out that it requires $108 yearly to get on the 1 DVD at a time plan through Netflix. And that’s without a brick and mortar building to allow browsing or any of the other services libraries offer. Pretending it’s even possible makes you look someone who skipped basic economics.
What the fuck is wrong with the word fuck? It’s a motherfucking goddamn useful word. Don’t believe me? Watch the documentary Fuck, it’s in the DVD section for people that are interested in etymology. I can also point you towards the books Nigger and On Bullshit for more on the history of swearing and racial epithets.
Nobody has suggested that you stop complaining. We just disagree with you quite strongly - we’re not trying to silence you.
In fact, I suggest you continue complaining - if your point is as good as you seem to think it is, you should have no problem changing things around.
Yes I did, and I made concrete arguments why this was a good idea. Although to be fair, I never mentioned weapons. And anyway, your arguments aren’t subjective? They don’t even make any sense.
Sarcasm aside, the government has every right to reach into your wallet and moreover, it has done so since this country was founded. And since you brought it up, yeah, I think Libertarians are kind of kooky.
That is a whole different ballgame. You’re comparing social legislation to public services. I didn’t call you an idiot, but then again, most other people I’ve run into know the difference, so maybe you know yourself better than I do.
Thanks, man! I aim to please. 
But many, many people are willing to pay for them. More people are, in fact, willing to pay for them than people who aren’t willing to pay for them – or else the people who aren’t willing to pay for them would have enough votes to stop paying for them.
Right? No? Why not?
Well, many people are not only willing to pay for them, but also willing to force other people against their will to pay for them as well. This latter part makes up much of the current funding. IdahoMauleMan’s proposal, for better or worse, is that we should measure services’ value by only how much voluntary payment they could be expected to receive.
Ohhh, it would probably receive about as much voluntary payment as highways or schools or the military. Which is why we have taxes to volunteer people’s payment for them.
We’re asking Idaho why public libraries should be singled out, particularly since they’re relatively cheap. Is it iust because he doesn’t like libraries as much as he likes highways, or is there another reason?
On edit: Look, for the record, I’m a political conservative, but I’m not a blind one. I don’t like paying taxes any more than Idaho does, but we have to be realistic. Without taxes, our country would be in a bad state, and you don’t get to choose what your taxes get spent on. An educated citizenry is an effective citizenry, and public libraries help educate everyone who chooses to use their resources. They are one of the few truly democratic institutions.
You had me. Then you lost me.
If ‘many, many’ people are willing to pay for it, great. Write a check for $2700 at the beginning of each year to get your Philadelphia library card (using the numbers discussed above as an example). The more the ‘many, many’ becomes the smaller that $2700 figure will get. The costs will get amortized over a larger number of patrons. If 1.5 million people actually use the service the cost per person should be quite low.
Write a check for more if you want to sponsor a ‘needy’ person who doesn’t have the means to enjoy the services. What a wonderful thing for you to do. It’s good for them and it’s good for you.
But if the ‘many, many’ actually turns out to only be a ‘few, few’ we will find out in big hurry if we start charging for the services, won’t we? Let’s put that to the test. Then we’ll know for sure.
Sure, sure. I’m not staking out a position; I was just trying to clarify IdahoMauleMan’s.
I’d like to revise my own statement. As others have pointed out, books are more likely to be taken home than read in the facility. That’s not possible with the desktop computers, so an observation would be radically skewed towards computer use.
Myself, the only things I read in the library are magazines and the computerized card catalog.
BTW, has anyone seen or used the self-checkout? You scan the book’s barcode and your library card barcode, then get a printout on a tape identical to the one at the main desk. No input needed from Marion. Kewl!
It’s not “few, few” and we DO know for sure. Can you explain how, if it is “few, few”, libraries get built and funded in the first place?
Because I can think of a least one way to tell it’s a majority. . .
I’m not sure who you are adressing your question to, but you may have misinterpreted my statement.
Public libraries rely on taxes for support. Not everyone pays taxes (in my area, it’s property taxes that support libraries, and not everyone lives in the taxing district or owns property). So they are financially supported by some people, but not all.
Yet they provide free access to all.
So when I go to the library, I am one of those who pay for the service, since I pay the taxes. The patron standing next to me, who lives out of town, gets it free.
So, to reiterate, “public libraries don’t give ALL people free, unlimited access to information”. They give the access to all, but it is not free to all.
Is that clearer?
Don’t disagree with you at all. As a self-professed wishy-washy libertarian, I heartily support taxation to fund the ‘hard core’ libertarian platform of
- National Defense
- Judicial System
- Local taxation for protection of property and safety
plus the slippery slope of those things required to maintain the world’s most productive society
- Education (via vouchers, not via a unionized governmental delivery mechanism)
- Insurance to protect against rare, but catastrophic loss (e.g. cancer)
- Basic National Infrastructure (those things with enormous transaction costs too high for the private sector)
We never really debated any of the details of any of this in this thread. Which is a shame. I’ve tried in other threads, but it never seems to gain any traction.
Thanks for your even-handed response.
My questions stand: Why single out public libraries? Why would you subject them to exclusively voluntary contributions but support taxes for the judicial system and the infrastructure? Especially since you admit your support for at least partial tax contributions to education? What is it about public libraries that sets off your alarms?