Yeehaw, Dano's Privatize Libraries Idea Comes to Fruition!

[Cancel 2016.2]

That is probably true but so what? Don't you think they should carry more what people demand?


That's hypothetical, most charities would be just some wealthy patron who would do no such thing. Many universities are privately funded and they are not very restrictive on their content.
But Super, they would have closed these anyway, what have they got to lose?

So what? THAT is the friggin problem. If they already have 100 copies of Harry potter and ZERO copies of 'A tale of two cities' they damn well better be purchasing a copy of 'A tale of two cities' vs. another copy of Harry potter.

Otherwise you only end up with what is most popular. You are not going to get the diversity that the libraries currently have.

You will also eliminate the poor from having access to the library. That is a bad friggin idea.

To pretend that wealthy donors don't put stipulations on how their money is used shows your lack of understanding in the fundraising non-profit world. People donate to charities that support their VIEWS and goals. They most certainly tend to put stipulations on how the money is spent.

Take a look at most foundations out there. Take a look at their grant requirements. They do not simply give the money to whomever has the best idea or project. They have guidelines as to who is qualified to apply for their money.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Go to a private bookstore, you do find more of some books than others, but you can still find a good variety of books.
There's no need to generate hypothetical fear when we have decent examples to compare to.


Well a lot of people were in favor of tax increases for healthcare in Oregon, but once the bill came in they changed their mind and let the politicians have it to boot. It's just like on polls here, many people will vote a certain way that they might deem PC to vote but would they really be behind it when it came time to take the flip side?


Corporations will certainly stock books that run counter to their interest, many bookstores even had such corporate anti-business people as Michael Moore with tons of his copies of books on sale in displays even.
Just like corporatios which still will advertise for such capitalist bashers like Air America or the New York Times.

Privatizing the library just creates ANOTHER bookstore Damo. The only thing different would be renting vs buying. That is the point.

 

[Cancel3]

Go to a private bookstore, you do find more of some books than others, but you can still find a good variety of books.
There's no need to generate hypothetical fear when we have decent examples to compare to.


Well a lot of people were in favor of tax increases for healthcare in Oregon, but once the bill came in they changed their mind and let the politicians have it to boot. It's just like on polls here, many people will vote a certain way that they might deem PC to vote but would they really be behind it when it came time to take the flip side?


Corporations will certainly stock books that run counter to their interest, many bookstores even had such corporate anti-business people as Michael Moore with tons of his copies of books on sale in displays even.
Just like corporatios which still will advertise for such capitalist bashers like Air America or the New York Times.

And the public library is a critical part of our world. And you are telling me to go look at book stores to see what the library of the future will be??

Even you should see the huge problem with that. This is not some wlefare entitlement issue, this is an issue concerning the entire population.



So bring it to a vote?? I would be willing to bet it would be shot down in flames. I do not believe the average person would be so misguided and ignorant as to think privatization is a good idea for public libraries.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Privatizing the library just creates ANOTHER bookstore Damo. The only thing different would be renting vs buying. That is the point.

I shouldn't even had said renting, in all likelihood most of these, especially those run by charities, would do the same as a normal library.

 

[KingCondanomation]

So what? THAT is the friggin problem. If they already have 100 copies of Harry potter and ZERO copies of 'A tale of two cities' they damn well better be purchasing a copy of 'A tale of two cities' vs. another copy of Harry potter.

Well come on, that's a bit out of reality. It's more like they might stock 30 copies of Harry Potter or decide whether or not to stock an extra copy of A Tale of 2 Cities.
I mean again using the bookstore example, yes they have more of some things but also have many many other choices in smaller quantities.

You will also eliminate the poor from having access to the library. That is a bad friggin idea.

To pretend that wealthy donors don't put stipulations on how their money is used shows your lack of understanding in the fundraising non-profit world. People donate to charities that support their VIEWS and goals. They most certainly tend to put stipulations on how the money is spent.

Take a look at most foundations out there. Take a look at their grant requirements. They do not simply give the money to whomever has the best idea or project. They have guidelines as to who is qualified to apply for their money.

But I'm not pretending, many universities are privately funded, their libraries have the same diversity in content. That's what I base that on.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I shouldn't even had said renting, in all likelihood most of these, especially those run by charities, would do the same as a normal library.

NO for-profit company is going to run it the same way as is currently done. NONE. It would be an instant loss.

 

[uscitizen]

Well come on, that's a bit out of reality. It's more like they might stock 30 copies of Harry Potter or decide whether or not to stock an extra copy of A Tale of 2 Cities.
I mean again using the bookstore example, yes they have more of some things but also have many many other choices in smaller quantities.


But I'm not pretending, many universities are privately funded, their libraries have the same diversity in content. That's what I base that on.

a university is in the business of teaching, a bookstore is in the business of selling books.

 

[Cancel3]

I shouldn't even had said renting, in all likelihood most of these, especially those run by charities, would do the same as a normal library.

"In all likelihood"? You don't know whether they will be renting or loaning, and you still think this is a good idea?


Closing public libraries is promoting ignorance. Its that simple.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well come on, that's a bit out of reality. It's more like they might stock 30 copies of Harry Potter or decide whether or not to stock an extra copy of A Tale of 2 Cities.
I mean again using the bookstore example, yes they have more of some things but also have many many other choices in smaller quantities.


But I'm not pretending, many universities are privately funded, their libraries have the same diversity in content. That's what I base that on.

It would be nice if, instead of digging in and defending to the death your positions, you would acknowledge the legitimacy of the criticisms being made and think a bit more about your position. Numerous legitimate criticisms have been made and you respond with nonsense about for-profit bookstores and private universities that aren't in the business of lending books.

As a general matter, privatizing public libraries is a bad idea, but it is preferable to allow non-profit entities to run public libraries that would otherwise be shut down.

 

[Cancel3]

But I'm not pretending, many universities are privately funded, their libraries have the same diversity in content. That's what I base that on.

And in order to checkout books you have to have paid thousands of dollars. In many cases, you would have to have paid thousands of dollars AND been accepted based on their own criteria just to be able to enter the university library.

Not exactly a promising comparison, is it?

 

[KingCondanomation]

The thing I am hearing most here is hypothetical disasters or deprivation. There are many poor people in the countryside who have no library but are very well read, I mean used books are incredibly cheap, often free.

When I was a teen for one summer I used the closest library nearly every day (and the neighborhood had it's share of poor people too), most of the people I saw there were very old, there was a few kids and I can't say anyone looked poor. And again I was there everyday, so I had a very decent size sample of people who used it.

You know it's probably an uncomfortable fact but poor people generally do not use libraries, they are nowadays more for old people who hate getting info from other means (ie: the internet) and defended by those who have good memories of them when young.

In any case, the libraries in this example in Philly get to stay open and not close, whatever they do provide is going to be better than nothing.

 

[Bonestorm]

The thing I am hearing most here is hypothetical disasters or deprivation. There are many poor people in the countryside who have no library but are very well read, I mean used books are incredibly cheap, often free.

When I was a teen for one summer I used the closest library nearly every day (and the neighborhood had it's share of poor people too), most of the people I saw there were very old, there was a few kids and I can't say anyone looked poor. And again I was there everyday, so I had a very decent size sample of people who used it.

You know it's probably an uncomfortable fact but poor people generally do not use libraries, they are nowadays more for old people who hate getting info from other means (ie: the internet) and defended by those who have good memories of them when young.

In any case, the libraries in this example in Philly get to stay open and not close, whatever they do provide is going to be better than nothing.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Danecdote.

 

[Cancel3]

It would be nice if, instead of digging in and defending to the death your positions, you would acknowledge the legitimacy of the criticisms being made and think a bit more about your position. Numerous legitimate criticisms have been made and you respond with nonsense about for-profit bookstores and private universities that aren't in the business of lending books.

As a general matter, privatizing public libraries is a bad idea, but it is preferable to allow non-profit entities to run public libraries that would otherwise be shut down.

What is even funnier is that earlier he posted "Don't be lured into being stubborn and argue for the sake of arguing and resign yourself to the rest of the Liberal pack on here, you could even for once try saying "You have a point"."

Funny he expects things of others that he cannot do himself.

 

[Cancel3]

The thing I am hearing most here is hypothetical disasters or deprivation. There are many poor people in the countryside who have no library but are very well read, I mean used books are incredibly cheap, often free.

When I was a teen for one summer I used the closest library nearly every day (and the neighborhood had it's share of poor people too), most of the people I saw there were very old, there was a few kids and I can't say anyone looked poor. And again I was there everyday, so I had a very decent size sample of people who used it.

You know it's probably an uncomfortable fact but poor people generally do not use libraries, they are nowadays more for old people who hate getting info from other means (ie: the internet) and defended by those who have good memories of them when young.

In any case, the libraries in this example in Philly get to stay open and not close, whatever they do provide is going to be better than nothing.

It is important to the poor, but that is not the ONLY reason the library is needed.

And this "its better than nothing" is bullshit. Considering the size of the Phila. budget, there is plenty that should have been cut before the library. And, if need be, there should have been enough of an increase in taxes to fund the PUBLIC library.

 

[KingCondanomation]

What is even funnier is that earlier he posted "Don't be lured into being stubborn and argue for the sake of arguing and resign yourself to the rest of the Liberal pack on here, you could even for once try saying "You have a point"."

Funny he expects things of others that he cannot do himself.

Bullshit, I responded to points, I didn't just make hysteria over poor people being shut out and it being a disaster.

Look this is Philly, not exactly a Conservative hotspot and they are doing this, so even the Liberals in power there don't consider this the impending disaster you guys are trying to make it out to be.

 

[Bonestorm]

It is important to the poor, but that is not the ONLY reason the library is needed.

And this "its better than nothing" is bullshit. Considering the size of the Phila. budget, there is plenty that should have been cut before the library. And, if need be, there should have been enough of an increase in taxes to fund the PUBLIC library.

In Philly there are currently 54 public libraries. 11 are slated to close, five of which have been apparently saved (in some form) by philanthropy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The thing I am hearing most here is hypothetical disasters or deprivation. There are many poor people in the countryside who have no library but are very well read, I mean used books are incredibly cheap, often free.

When I was a teen for one summer I used the closest library nearly every day (and the neighborhood had it's share of poor people too), most of the people I saw there were very old, there was a few kids and I can't say anyone looked poor. And again I was there everyday, so I had a very decent size sample of people who used it.

You know it's probably an uncomfortable fact but poor people generally do not use libraries, they are nowadays more for old people who hate getting info from other means (ie: the internet) and defended by those who have good memories of them when young.

In any case, the libraries in this example in Philly get to stay open and not close, whatever they do provide is going to be better than nothing.

The bolded portion is the biggest pile of crap I have seen on this board in a while and that is saying a lot given the crap Lorax and Darla have been dishing out.

Poor people most certainly DO use the libraries. They are the ones that cannot afford home computers, so they go to the library. They also are there to check out books, movies etc.. because it is free. Where the poor usually DO NOT go is to a private bookstore. Which is what you wish to create.

Then you pull out your 'well the private corps and charities will run them just like a library does currently' line of crap. Which is blatantly false. Especially for the private corps.

 

[KingCondanomation]

It is important to the poor, but that is not the ONLY reason the library is needed.

It's not important to the poor, it's more important to the middle class - based on use anyway.
Look at the protests in the article, do you see poor people saying we are too poor and will not be able to read if you shut them down? No, they are just some concerned middle income people who want their library open because they see it as important.

And this "its better than nothing" is bullshit. Considering the size of the Phila. budget, there is plenty that should have been cut before the library. And, if need be, there should have been enough of an increase in taxes to fund the PUBLIC library.

There is probably plenty they are cutting anyway.
Ok so what would you cut? I've seen my share of middlish people who don't seem to like taxes but can't bring themselves to cut anything.
Social welfare housing would be a great place to start cutting deeply.

 

[Bonestorm]

It's not important to the poor, it's more important to the middle class - based on use anyway.
Look at the protests in the article, do you see poor people saying we are too poor and will not be able to read if you shut them down? No, they are just some concerned middle income people who want their library open because they see it as important.

Are you serious with this crap? Basing who free public libraries are important to on an article about a public hearing concerning the closing of some library branches is about the stupidest fucking thing I've heard in a while (Note: I've been off the board for a few days).

There is probably plenty they are cutting anyway.
Ok so what would you cut? I've seen my share of middlish people who don't seem to like taxes but can't bring themselves to cut anything.
Social welfare housing would be a great place to start cutting deeply.

Lemme guess, welfare and public housing assistance aren't important to poor people?

 

[KingCondanomation]

The bolded portion is the biggest pile of crap I have seen on this board in a while and that is saying a lot given the crap Lorax and Darla have been dishing out.

Poor people most certainly DO use the libraries. They are the ones that cannot afford home computers, so they go to the library. They also are there to check out books, movies etc.. because it is free. Where the poor usually DO NOT go is to a private bookstore. Which is what you wish to create.

I'm sorry Super but that is a theory, probably the theory on which libraries were started but it is simply not reality.
I've lived poor, even one friend I had who lived in the back basement of his Mom's shit apartment in one of the shittiest neighborhoods had a bunch of books, he didn't read them. Books, especially used books are NOT expensive, book fairs at school you can get books for like 5 or 10 cents each, ditto for garage sales.
The poor have access to them but they don't care. That's a problem in this country but it's not because the library is accessible or not.

Then you pull out your 'well the private corps and charities will run them just like a library does currently' line of crap. Which is blatantly false. Especially for the private corps.

Ok that is crap for the private corps, they would need to make some money and they would likely rent them or perhaps raise other fees. But again, better than closing.