I read an article about Missouri’s House cutting funding to their libraries and it made me really sad.

Submitted by poopmaester41 t3_1264rs7 in books

They stated that their reasoning is to prevent sex from being pushed to children and that librarians who release sexual content into the hands of children will be heavily fined, but that it “does not apply to written descriptions of sex or sexual acts; only photos, drawings, videos and other visual depictions are prohibited.” They also claim that “exceptions are provided for works of art, science classes, and other educational courses,” but if they do away with formal sex education and gender studies in school, then that same educational literature could be considered perverse and cause the librarians to suffer—all while depraving the libraries of the resources they need to function to begin with!

I am a huge advocate for libraries and librarians, and I cannot believe this. I grew up going to the library every single day. It is so obviously wrong, to take away such a huge resource from an entire state of people. I am truly shocked.

631

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DatsunDom t1_je87shm wrote

If it wasn't for the St. Louis Public Library system I wouldn't have the love and admiration I have for libraries today. They were a wonderful respit for a child living a chaotic life and one of the very few options for my disabled aunt to give me a form of community and structure. This is simply horrifying to hear and my heart hurts for every child in Missouri.

165

iNeedScissorsSixty7 t1_jecrzos wrote

I live around the corner from the Barr library (Jefferson and 44) and love that place. I was there today.

2

squatch42 t1_je967om wrote

The law passed last year only applies to school libraries. Rest assured, librarians at the St. Louis Public Library could still give Hustler to five year olds and not be in violation of this particular law.

−101

Ellie_Arabella87 t1_je9hq4l wrote

The newest budget defunded all libraries as retaliation for aclu suing them on the previous law.

53

squatch42 t1_je9kcyv wrote

What does "defund" even mean? And how will this defunding actually affect the operating budget of all libraries in the state?

−79

Ellie_Arabella87 t1_je9lcv6 wrote

It means they won’t be given state funds this year. As to how it affects them, I honestly don’t know how much of a budget they depend on these funds for, if there are other funds that can’t be removed, etc. Maybe a librarian could enlighten us on that. My only point is that the MO congress seemingly thinks it’s ok to risk precious resources for communities because they want to throw a temper tantrum about a lawsuit that the people of the state likely had no knowledge of and certainly no culpability for.

46

Sunflowerslaughter t1_jebcvsg wrote

It means no state funds. This won't harm larger cities mostly, as they usually have taxes levied to help them operate, but rural communities libraries rely on state funding much more. This will lead to potential closures, largely impacting small communities that realistically aren't doing anything the gop lawmakers are worried about.

3

robotgunk t1_je833h6 wrote

When I worked in library, the only people pushing sex into children's hands were zealots. They actively reshelved inappropriate items in the children's section so they'd be found and create an uproar. We knew who they were and would just go around behind them and remove the items. Can you imagine the thought process? Truly thinking you were doing good work?

149

hunnibear_girl t1_je9i5ib wrote

I’m honestly think the whole anti trans agenda in libraries is just a made up excuse to defund them so people (especially older people who tend to frequent libraries) won’t blow a gasket as they all begin to close. The government, rather than just saying, “most people are moving to digital”, feel they need an excuse, which is so much worse than just leveling with folks.

37

Amphy64 t1_jea5ng4 wrote

Could be, especially with older voters a key demographic of supporters. But then pointing out that digital is frequently an effective replacement might let said older voters in on the fact that the kids can look up all the inclusive sex education material they want online (and that just for starters), and then there'd be more of a push for internet regulation too.

5

quietdisaster t1_je8n6hj wrote

I hope the place has cameras. You may need it!

21

JThomasShort t1_jeabe91 wrote

Speaking as a librarian, I would rather deal with the inconvenience of somebody purposely misshelving material forever than implement a surveillance policy that would impinge on the privacy of our patrons.

32

pinpoint14 t1_jef89pm wrote

Y'all rock. Seriously some of the most considerate and ethical humans I've been around in the union world

2

vivahermione t1_jeadqx9 wrote

That's insane, but I think your overall point is true. These same types complain whenever a gay couple appears in a book because it's "too sexual" for children to read, but the existence of a gay couple isn't any more sexual than a straight couple would be.

9

Load_Altruistic t1_je7k21u wrote

The GOP these days is basically built on anti-intellectualism. Kurt Vonnegut said it best

Edit: Lol, someone pointed out it was actually Asimov who said the quote. I confused my writers, haha

77

UWCG t1_je8vgyl wrote

I'm partial to Asimov's quote myself:

>“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”

60

Load_Altruistic t1_je9oyc9 wrote

Hahahaha, I really misquoted it as Vonnegut! Thank you for correcting me. I knew it was one of the science fiction authors

6

UWCG t1_jeaxz1n wrote

Hey, Vonnegut’s a very quotable guy, I just figured he had a quote floating around I haven’t seen before!

3

Load_Altruistic t1_jeay86j wrote

He might! It’s actually likely that he does considering the nature of his works. But I was definitely thinking of the Asimov quote and for some reason thought it was Vonnegut who said it….

2

South_Honey2705 t1_je8ar10 wrote

My library meant the world to me was an introvert so those books were like family to me

57

Max_E_Mas t1_je7jn96 wrote

Missourian here. My grandma has used the library as long as I can remember. She loves to read. She reads a lot. I myself am trying to figure out what I can do. I got the internet so a lot of stuff I can find online or simply not read. And factual stuff I'll just go to YouTube but for my Grandmother it hurts. This is what my state is. They stopped abortion. They are fighting against Trans youth rights and now they are taking away the library from us. Take note because your state maybe next

48

Sylphael t1_je87a5h wrote

If you have the means to read using Hoopla, Librista or any of the other myriad apps libraries use for eBooks, there's very little stopping you from being able to procure an out of county library card from a library in another state to use their digital services. I myself am a librarian and we do have patrons who are out of the area and just use those services... we charge $15/year in out of county fees at my library, but the amount varies.

19

Max_E_Mas t1_je88al1 wrote

Huh. Really? So, how vast would you say this catalog is? On these apps? Like, do they have only a specific type of book? Do they have manga and comics? Do they have like more current books or just older? Im trying to get an idea so, if worse comes to worse I can get my Grandma to still have her reading. It maybe not as great as having a physical book in your hand (Something I personally feel as a Millennial and she is a Boomer so I know she will most likely agree.) but like. If I can still help her then damn it I am gonna.

0

Sylphael t1_je88zc9 wrote

It depends on which library you get a card from; you get access to that library's entire digital catalog. My library is a pretty small library, so it's not vast but definitely still a good collection. We have manga and comics, and update our collection monthly with new titles that come out as well as requested titles. I recommend doing some research to find out which libraries are good values in terms of the cost of their out of county fee versus the size of their collection.

12

Max_E_Mas t1_je89qqs wrote

I see I see. And is there like, a database I could look up this info or would it be like. Just county to county I need to look into?

Also, is there like a limit for how far I can be out of their district to rent?

1

Sylphael t1_je8bywy wrote

I'm not aware of a database, but I did a quick search for which libraries retain the largest digital collections and that returned results pretty easily. It seems like the Los Angeles Public Library has the largest Overdrive/Librista collection in the US, for instance. Their nonresident fee is $50, which applies to all applicants who are not CA residents.

Usually there is no limit except that you be within the country, though I can't definitely speak for every single library. Certainly for the larger libraries at least there isn't. Most of them are very, very used to having members who live quite a distance away.

4

carlitospig t1_jea0k4g wrote

So I need clarification on this. I’m a Cali resident but not with a Los Angeles street address and I don’t see that they’ve opened it up to outsiders without physically going to LA. Where are you seeing out of state e-cards for $50?

“I don't live in Los Angeles, may I still apply for an e-card?

Anyone may apply for a full-access library card by visiting one of our library locations with identification and proof of address.”

Edit: and I just tried to apply for a card and it told me that I needed a LA address to apply for a card. So. Yah, I’m not seeing that they’re allowing out of county - or state - cards.

0

ModernNancyDrew t1_je8azu8 wrote

You may be able to get books for your grandma at Little Free Libraries, thrift stores, and garage sales. I guess this is the new, "black market."

7

madsongstress t1_jea0ja5 wrote

Depending on your grandma's health, she may be able to get reading materials through the Wolfner service.

https://www.sos.mo.gov/wolfner

Talking books and Braille, and your local library may have a homebound service that can send all kinds of materials to her if she is basically homebound.

1

South_Honey2705 t1_je7ynpl wrote

Yes it's so scary and here I thought FL was bad.

−1

Max_E_Mas t1_je87vc4 wrote

At the very least, Florida has amusement parks. So at least you can freaking ride Dumbo and try to make you forget how shitty a state you live in. Missouri has ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Just don't come here. Trust me.

7

squatch42 t1_je96inp wrote

I'm confused. What exactly do you think is happening? You think your grandma won't be able to go to the library any more?

−4

madsongstress t1_je9zlry wrote

Missouri librarian here. My large library system will lose a small amount of funding, rural libraries will be harmed more by this, but we do have a dysfunctional board doing their usual shennanigans...resulting in the budget being f***** with, causing numerous problems including a hiring freeze in my building which directly affects me, and the help I am able to get with the particular service I work on. I can also state that an no time in my library career have I said "Hey KID! pssst! Comere! Look at all these sexy videos!!!" Nor have I tried to convert kids to be gay. I HAVE however, helped people fill out job applications, create their first email account, find local resources they need to SURVIVE, connected people with life changing books, provided an empathic listening ear...long list. All for NO pay raise in years and now owing to the hiring freeze my job duties have doubled because employees that leave are not being replaced. It's demoralizing. If I didn't really like the job and adore my colleagues, I'd be out of here. We are on the front lines of the dumbassery and it's just getting worse. If you know any librarians, go give them a hug....unless they don't want to be touched. Then leave them the fuck alone.

39

Zephyrkittycat t1_jeayrsu wrote

Not American but my heart breaks for you. Library's and librarians are treasures of the community.

3

PaddlesOwnCanoe t1_jebidyz wrote

I feel ya. I'm in Tennessee and we're battening down our hatches too.

3

philosophyofblonde t1_jecsxoh wrote

Not in Missouri but most of the rural libraries locally are largely funded by private endowments and the occasional grant.

1

esp211 t1_je9bq5y wrote

Move out of red states if you can. We are lamenting about books and libraries but things will f for sure get worse.

21

amarugia t1_jea0dfi wrote

That's what they want.

https://www.rawstory.com/republican-party-legislative-takeover/

11

ClaypoolsArmy t1_jeagic9 wrote

This is pretty horrifying. I've said it for years that we would be so much better off if we eliminated the senate all together. It is an inherently undemocratic institution. This country is built on some pretty authoritarian ideals

7

chocoboat t1_jed6gvh wrote

Sadly it's impossible to make any changes to provide equal representation for American voters. The people who benefit from the flaws in the system will vote to maintain the flaws forever.

2

mikevago t1_je9pnfo wrote

It's not about sex at all. It's a flimsy pretext to attack and defund public schools, which has been a decades-long project on the part of Republicans. They want private school for their kids and child labor for yours.

18

drinkingchartreuse t1_je9lzy4 wrote

Republicans can only win elections and maintain control of the poor if they keep them uneducated.

12

hairface3668 t1_je8cw35 wrote

Brawndo! It's got what plants crave.

8

lucyjayne t1_je9vrsq wrote

Boy I wonder where those kids are going to be exposed to sexual material. It couldn't be the device that is in their hands 24/7. No it's probably at the library.

8

[deleted] t1_je98wmg wrote

[deleted]

6

vivahermione t1_jeac288 wrote

>Yeah, these rubes are having a heyday, at a time when one would have thought this kind of regressive, ignorant, paranoid thinking was dead and buried.

It reminds me of an old episode of Family Guy when Meg Griffin becomes a zealot and participates in a book burning where people burn math and logic textbooks. At the time, viewers complained because "that's outlandish. It can't happen here." How wrong they were...

5

TaliesinMerlin t1_je9uocl wrote

This bill would hit hardest those programs that rely on state funding where city or county funding falls short.

Anyway, the double-think being exhibited in a statement like this is astounding:

>Republican Rep. Dirk Deaton of Noel defended the law and the decision to strip public library funding in response to the lawsuit. “It’s been said this is a book ban. This is not that,” Deaton said. “It is protecting innocent children.”

He completely disconnects purpose, cause, and effect. Let's pretend for a moment that this action protects innocent children. How would it do that? By defunding libraries that dare to legally challenge book bans. Dirk Deaton tells a big lie because he knows that "protecting children" is a weak band-aid that covers the Republican power grab for strictly controlling the information the public has free access to.

6

neuroid99 t1_jeapgea wrote

Vote. The bastards. Out. While we still can.

6

pfcsock t1_je9wa81 wrote

This is the sad reality of more them a third of the population not voting and half of what's left, listening to fox new and voting in wannabe fascists.

5

Stillwater215 t1_jean4qk wrote

Cool. Now cut the tax breaks for churches that talk about sex and sexual orientation. Oh, they won’t do that? Hmm, interesting.

5

TheMassesOpiate t1_je8v4uc wrote

Safe havens for all. I remember going there for hours on end and playing runescape with kid friends. I remember not recognizing how enamored I had become by the books and the rungs on the ladders, that place seemed so fun.

4

Directorshaggy t1_je9wspw wrote

I remember my first day of learning about Republican straw man values too.

4

FairyFartDaydreams t1_jeagg7c wrote

Librarians don't push an agenda. They respect the people who ask for information by giving them the information they ask for. Part of the ethical training is to provide what patrons ask for. They also curate a collection based on their community needs. It is sad that politicians are trying to limit what people can research so they can make a name for themselves. It is pathetic.

4

BobCrosswise t1_jearx4y wrote

Another of the ever-growing number of things that will likely be notable to future historians studying the decline and fall of the US.

4

MegC18 t1_je90y59 wrote

They do know that virtually all kids can find anything on the Internet… Whooo! Some of that fan fiction!

3

br0mer t1_je9b1kn wrote

It's not called misery for nothing

3

EvokeWonder t1_jeax6zc wrote

Don’t they have library cards that has age restrictions so kids couldn’t check out when it was not appropriate for a child to check out? I know I use to have that when I lived in Nashville, TN when I was a kid.

3

republicansRtraytors t1_jeao49v wrote

Conservatives generally hate education. Sad fact but not surprising. They will be moving on to banning books next.

2

matt35303 t1_je946qx wrote

Murica ain't readin no books anyways

1

mr444guy t1_jeaeokt wrote

Don't understand how Missourians will put up with that. People need to start standing up against the fascism that republicans are trying to instill in America.

1

South_Honey2705 t1_jeaqzxw wrote

Good God I was reading sexually explicit books at age 10 and it never haed me and thank God my parents let me read what I wanted to

1

PaddlesOwnCanoe t1_jebhsyj wrote

Sadly, this is happening all over the country.

1

odysseusity t1_jecrsow wrote

We must help these legislators battle their disease…Critical Thinking Deficiency Syndrome is devastating and debilitating. They are now drooling from diminishing brain matter, and left with the minds of (white) two year-olds.

1

shadybears t1_jee7cyj wrote

If it weren't for my public library, I wouldn't have access to books as a kid. We grew up poor. While we would make the occasional trip to the bookstore, we made many more trips to the library.

Maybe I was sheltered, but I don't ever recall trying to read sexual content? Seems like a stretch...

1

books-n-banter t1_jeg9n96 wrote

sounds like they are aware that the bible has lots of sexual content: incest, rape, onanism, etc

1

jdino t1_je9pbfq wrote

Yeah, imagine living here.

0

Jarkside t1_je8zbnk wrote

I am posting this same comment in multiple threads…

The reason the mo legislature did this is dumb, but the $4.5M is a small amount. For instance the STL County Library budget in 2021 was over $56M, but the state aid portion of that is less than $400k. In other words, it’s a rounding error, and getting the state out of local library decisions should actually be better than allowing them to influence things.

https://www.slcl.org/sites/default/files/2021-Approved-Budget.pdf

−3

TaliesinMerlin t1_je9uxum wrote

How are the budgets of more rural libraries affected? Also, why is lower funding pitched as "getting the state out of local library decisions" when revoking the funding is a consequence of the state involving itself in local library decisions?

8

DancingConstellation t1_je7wkt1 wrote

Get libraries out of the hands of government

−40

PlanetGoneCyclingOn t1_je841x3 wrote

No, get the government out of the hands of the GOP.

26

DancingConstellation t1_je84hjj wrote

No, get them out of the hands of government.

−24

Luxoriolu t1_je9spm6 wrote

Ben Franklin literally said himself that public libraries and a well-informed public are essential for preventing future tyranny.

8

DancingConstellation t1_je9t562 wrote

Respectfully, I couldn’t care less what Ben Franklin said. That’s not a compelling position. I would suggest that taxation, the mode for which these libraries largely exist and are funded, is tyranny. I think the market would deliver a superior product and variety of product, and more importantly it would be done through voluntary instead of coercive means

−7

Luxoriolu t1_je9sqjv wrote

Ben Franklin literally said himself that public libraries and a well-informed public are essential for preventing future tyranny.

2

DancingConstellation t1_je9tomu wrote

I’ve replied to this same response elsewhere but for accuracy’s sake please provide the quote and citation in full. Thanks.

−4

Luxoriolu t1_je9vfqr wrote

God, you're such a lazy pos. I suggest checking out his autobiography find finding it yourself for fuck's sake.

3

DancingConstellation t1_je9wj6r wrote

You’re the one making the claim. It’s on you to back it up but you block me and call me a name instead. So who’s the lazy one?

−1

Sylphael t1_je882pf wrote

It may reassure you to read the American Library Association Code of Ethics, by which public libraries abide. Therein you can read that libraries following said code strive, as organizations, to be as apolitical and neutral as possible. Their only goal is to make all viewpoints available to all people, so that those people can make informed decisions on their own on whatever they choose to access.

19

DancingConstellation t1_je88fx0 wrote

No thanks. That has nothing to do with my point. My point is get libraries out the hands of government entirely. In other words end “public” libraries and transition or replace them into privately-owned and market-driven products.

−42

IamSithCats t1_je8d6y8 wrote

This is an absolutely terrible idea that's antithetical to the very idea of libraries. Public libraries provide a multitude of services that people need, and which are not profitable. Take them away and people will not only lose inexpensive access to books. A lot of people will lose access to the internet who can't afford to have it at home. Also gone will be cheap faxing (which you'd think would be an obsolete technology but is still required for a lot of things), free notary services, free computer help, and one of the last public places people can go where they're not forced to spend money merely for existing.

Privately-owned libraries will inevitably become profit-driven, and from there it's a matter of time until they start losing services that people depend on.

28

DancingConstellation t1_je9iktu wrote

It’s not antithetical to the “idea” of libraries at all. Of course privately-owned libraries would be profit driven but public libraries don’t provide needs, the services are wants. You assume that some of these wants wouldn’t be offered at no cost to the customer or that there wouldn’t be “inexpensive access.” You assume that there wouldn’t be non-profit models, charitable models, or donation-based models. The beauty of the market is that opportunity exists to meet various wants.

Food is a need, so why not have the government take over grocery stores instead? I think you’d agree that would be a terrible idea.

−7

o_-o_-o_- t1_jeaolfh wrote

And yet, food stamps for struggling populations. You're unable or unwilling to acknowledge the human rights that libraries serve and completion of, yes, needs that they do fulfill, be it education (self, or library sponsored classes, talks), or something like access to the internet (definitely a need in the modern age), to access to printers.

Beyond the obvious easy needs like internet access and printer access, your understanding of human needs also sucks frankly. Life would be cleaner if we were robotic AIs that only needed fuel, sure. But, fortunately or unfortunately, human needs do extend beyond concrete and material physical needs. We need stimulation and enrichment for our well-being. Libraries are set up to provide that effectively, especially in disadvantaged populations, be it in entertainment, education, or simple support via a warm place to gather for social interaction. Maybe even support community togetherness, getting to know your neighbors, etc, which can be an invaluable part of a strong, successful community.

Library services benefit people, in abstract ways (supporting educated, happy, and competent workers) as well as concrete ways, that in turn can benefit society.

They also make for efficient use of resources. Borrowing is beneficial for our environment, and for people's bottom line, which can also then turn around to help people invest in the economy or support themselves in other ways so the state doesn't have to. Libraries also lend other things that can lead to self sufficient members of society: I know of libraries that "loan" seeds so that members can grow vegetable gardens. Libraries can also loan things like cooking equipment, chargers, and technology people might, yes, need in order to support themselves and their families.

You're not being so logical as you think you are. Thats the pitfall of a lot of republican ideal, in my experience as an ex republican. Lots of talk of "cold hard facts" without a lot of substance to them or true exploration of the background of them.

Frankly, your argument is the easy way out, and it's driven by more personal opinion and experience than you likely realize or would be able to admit.

5

DancingConstellation t1_jeaqqjs wrote

Libraries don’t serve a single “human right.” Rights are negative, not positive. I think you’re greatly misunderstanding my position. I’m not advocating for abolishing libraries or any of their services.

−1

o_-o_-o_- t1_jearahl wrote

I think you're misunderstanding what I said as well. I disagreed with you that libraries don't fulfill any human needs and therefore should not be subsidized, and argued to the needs that libraries do absolutely serve. I also disagreed with your (implied) denial of abstract and intangible things (like entertainment and enrichment) as human needs.

Edit: also "rights are negative" seems arbitrary to me. Depends entirely on where you place your reference point.

3

DancingConstellation t1_jearta3 wrote

Neither of those are needs. You are confusing wants with needs.

−1

o_-o_-o_- t1_jeascsa wrote

That's not a refutation of the point, and I have to conclude from that that you fail to understand humans and our needs on the whole.

3

DancingConstellation t1_jeasqup wrote

It absolutely is a refutation. You are confusing wants with needs (as well as not understanding what a right is).

1

o_-o_-o_- t1_jeaugmr wrote

"No"

Sure it's a refutation technically, but what I meant (my bad - I should have been more specific), is that it's not a strong or logical one. I was using " refutation" in a more limited scope than you possibly were. A solid refutation would require you to elaborate on why enrichment is not a human need, after I talked a bit in my first comment about how abstract concepts like that are.To be fair, I could have added more evidence as to why I understand them to be needs.

Your definition of rights is arbitrary to me (i edited my last comment too late). Also to be fair to you, I wasn't really talking about rights. Just needs. All I was addressing were needs.

You should actually read my first comment. It doesn't seem like you did. That said (partially because of that), any discussion on this might not go anywhere, and I will possibly not respond again as a result. I've been on your side of things, and I don't think your position on needs (and possibly rights, based on the few words youve said on them) is convincing or compelling, so this is becoming increasingly pointless to me, to be honest. You're talking past me, and don't seem interested in reading my comment. I'm talking past you. Kind of pointless.

1

IamSithCats t1_jeh4xhk wrote

Don't waste your time with this troll. He's just ignoring everything that disproves his argument.

2

DancingConstellation t1_jeavlpw wrote

I didn’t give a definition of rights.

1

o_-o_-o_- t1_jeax2nm wrote

Not structurally speaking? You'll have to elaborate if not.

You said:

>Rights are negative, not positive.

I think this is as arbitrary as defining a reference point or normalizing chosen constants to 1. Maybe even more arbitrary than that. Your focus on that structural definition implies to me that we have very different focus in the first place.

It's also outside of the point I was discussing, and I didn't claim you defined rights (edit: fair, i did use the word definition initially), just that we have different positions on what little we've discussed on them.

And so the conversation veers further and becomes further confused...

1

IamSithCats t1_jeh4l58 wrote

Spoken like someone who hasn't spent any time in a public library. You can't see past the book checkouts (and even then, people checkout books for a lot more than pleasure reading).

For all your babbling about "markets" you're failing to realize that public libraries are already extremely popular. The vast majority of people like the existing library system just the way it is.

1

Sylphael t1_je89v5v wrote

As a librarian I'd like to respectfully say that I don't think that's a stellar idea. But you're entitled to your viewpoint (that is, after all, what libraries are for...) as well.

19

DancingConstellation t1_je8anbf wrote

Why isn’t it a stellar idea?

−12

[deleted] t1_je8ivwe wrote

[deleted]

19

DancingConstellation t1_je9iy28 wrote

No, rights are not created by humans or government. The government most certainly does silence speech and censors. You have zero sway over the government and more sway as a consumer in the market as businesses succeed or fail based on reaction to market signals snd indicators.

−1

HappyLittleRadishes t1_je9fcdx wrote

Doing that would defeat the purpose of a library.

A privately-owned library with market-driven products is called a bookstore.

14

DancingConstellation t1_je9jdi0 wrote

No it wouldn’t. The example you’re looking for would be akin to Blockbuster or Netflix. But there would certainly be different models in the market with different pricing structures including no cost options

−1

HappyLittleRadishes t1_je9jkrn wrote

> no cost options

Wow, if only we had a place where people could go to borrow books for no cost

12

DancingConstellation t1_je9jy5g wrote

Unfortunately there is cost and even worse that cost is forced rather than paid voluntarily.

0

HappyLittleRadishes t1_je9kdv2 wrote

You aren't forced. You are free to leave the country at any time.

You are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Libraries are a good thing, and the only people that think otherwise are people that don't like an educated populace, or people that don't like people getting for free something that they could be making money off of.

Stop trying to privatize everything.

11

DancingConstellation t1_je9kxm0 wrote

You absolutely are forced.

“Libraries are a good thing.”

I agree. Why are you arguing a straw man?

−1

HappyLittleRadishes t1_je9ljgm wrote

You aren't forced to pay taxes any more than you are forced to pay rent.

If you don't want to pay then, don't live there.

You are arguing for the effective abolishment of libraries. You are arguing to force people to pay for something they don't have to pay for already.

All you libertarians are housecats.

11

DancingConstellation t1_je9o9ra wrote

Of course you’re forced to pay taxes. Nothing about taxation is voluntary. I’m obviously not arguing for the abolishment of libraries. You aren’t paying attention.

1

UWCG t1_je92ohw wrote

> replace them into privately-owned and market-driven products.

This is an awful idea that completely defeats the purpose of a public library. Libraries exist to provide access to books and other forms of knowledge for people who otherwise might not have that access. By taking that away, you also take away what is historically an important means of social mobility for many people who are underprivileged.

13