Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DancingConstellation t1_je9iktu wrote

Reply to comment by IamSithCats in I read an article about Missouri’s House cutting funding to their libraries and it made me really sad. by poopmaester41

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