Sylphael t1_je882pf wrote
Reply to comment by DancingConstellation in I read an article about Missouri’s House cutting funding to their libraries and it made me really sad. by poopmaester41
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DancingConstellation t1_jearta3 wrote
Neither of those are needs. You are confusing wants with needs.
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.
DancingConstellation t1_jeasqup wrote
It absolutely is a refutation. You are confusing wants with needs (as well as not understanding what a right is).
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.
IamSithCats t1_jeh4xhk wrote
Don't waste your time with this troll. He's just ignoring everything that disproves his argument.
DancingConstellation t1_jeavlpw wrote
I didn’t give a definition of rights.
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...
DancingConstellation t1_jeaxd50 wrote
“Your definition of rights is arbitrary”
I’m finished with this.
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.
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.
DancingConstellation t1_je8anbf wrote
Why isn’t it a stellar idea?
[deleted] t1_je8ivwe wrote
[deleted]
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.
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.
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
HappyLittleRadishes t1_je9jkrn wrote
> no cost options
Wow, if only we had a place where people could go to borrow books for no cost
DancingConstellation t1_je9jy5g wrote
Unfortunately there is cost and even worse that cost is forced rather than paid voluntarily.
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.
DancingConstellation t1_je9kxm0 wrote
You absolutely are forced.
“Libraries are a good thing.”
I agree. Why are you arguing a straw man?
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.
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.
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.
trwawy05312015 t1_je9mvpu wrote
Gross
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments