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

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
I promoted a great idea years ago to privatize libraries and now in Philly they are doing exactly that with some of the libraries. :)

Instead of having government run them off forced taxation, they will instead be funded and run privately:
"Mayor Nutter said yesterday that five of the 11 library branches once scheduled to close permanently on Thursday are instead on track to be taken over by private foundations, wealthy individuals, companies, and community development corporations."
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/2...ary_branches_may_be_saved.html?cmpid=16850266

Wow, this is great, I mean it's really not that radical an idea, many people go into Chapters and read the books there for free, then they may buy them. What's wrong with a business that rents books?

Contact your community reps and urge them to privatize libraries, helping to reduce government, the deficit and allow more freedom!
 
The tiny amount of tax revenue that is used for libraries is some of the best spent money I know about.

Renting books? Knowledge is the greatest power we can possibly have, and to remove it as a free public service and degrade it to something that is only available for those who can afford it is a travesty.

The public library is one of the greatest services our government has provided its people. It has been a free service during the worst times we have known. It is where everyone can have access to the world's knowledge and literature without being charged.



Sorry, as much as I love seeing the tax burden lowered, there are some things that the government SHOULD provide.
 
Solitary said:
The tiny amount of tax revenue that is used for libraries is some of the best spent money I know about.

Renting books? Knowledge is the greatest power we can possibly have, and to remove it as a free public service and degrade it to something that is only available for those who can afford it is a travesty.

The public library is one of the greatest services our government has provided its people. It has been a free service during the worst times we have known. It is where everyone can have access to the world's knowledge and literature without being charged.

Sorry, as much as I love seeing the tax burden lowered, there are some things that the government SHOULD provide.
Click to expand...
It's probably not that tiny if they are cutting it.

I say renting books, but they might just do the same as regular libraries and charge for media and late charges, who knows, they are always better at trying to find a balance between what customers want and being in the black.
Moreover a lot of these will be run by private charity.
The bigger point is it's private now, no more state control and more economic freedom for all (a hard thing to come by in this age).
 
KingCondanomation said:
It's probably not that tiny if they are cutting it.

I say renting books, but they might just do the same as regular libraries and charge for media and late charges, who knows, they are always better at trying to find a balance between what customers want and being in the black.
Moreover a lot of these will be run by private charity.
The bigger point is it's private now, no more state control and more economic freedom for all (a hard thing to come by in this age).
Click to expand...

And I am sure you would be all for a private charity deciding which books were suitable and which were blasphemy?

The fact that the poorest family can still gain internet access, read a great deal and learn without shelling out money is the point of a library.

Literacy is an answer to so many problems in our world. Knowledge is what we need more of, and need to spread even more, instead of restricting.
 
Solitary said:
The tiny amount of tax revenue that is used for libraries is some of the best spent money I know about.

Renting books? Knowledge is the greatest power we can possibly have, and to remove it as a free public service and degrade it to something that is only available for those who can afford it is a travesty.

The public library is one of the greatest services our government has provided its people. It has been a free service during the worst times we have known. It is where everyone can have access to the world's knowledge and literature without being charged.



Sorry, as much as I love seeing the tax burden lowered, there are some things that the government SHOULD provide.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Public libraries provide sources of information that many cannot afford to access in other manners. Whether it be using the computer systems or checking out books to read.

Privatization of the library system is a bad idea.
 
Solitary said:
And I am sure you would be all for a private charity deciding which books were suitable and which were blasphemy?
Click to expand...
My experience with private entities is that they tend to stock more what people demand.

Solitary said:
The fact that the poorest family can still gain internet access, read a great deal and learn without shelling out money is the point of a library.
Literacy is an answer to so many problems in our world. Knowledge is what we need more of, and need to spread even more, instead of restricting.
Click to expand...
Building on my earlier point, it is quite likely that MORE people and kids will access the library as they are more interested in trying to satisfy their customers rather than follow some bureaucrat's directive of what HE thinks people want.

Less is being cut here because they are being kept alive by private interest, surely them being kept open in ANY capacity is better than them closing? (Hint: This is your test to see whether you go by stubbornness or logic).
 
I bet Dano believes he had something to do with this, just like he believes that when people leave or take a break from JPP, it's because he did...
 
KingCondanomation said:
My experience with private entities is that they tend to stock more what people demand.


Building on my earlier point, it is quite likely that MORE people and kids will access the library as they are more interested in trying to satisfy their customers rather than follow some bureaucrat's directive of what HE thinks people want.

Less is being cut here because they are being kept alive by private interest, surely them being kept open in ANY capacity is better than them closing? (Hint: This is your test to see whether you go by stubbornness or logic).
Click to expand...

That is bullshit dano... you will eliminate the poors access to the system if you start charging for it. You will also tend to get less of a selection, not a greater selection. Our library system takes requests.

If they have 500 requests for an additional copy of 'movie/book x' or one request for a copy of a movie/book they do not currently carry, they will fill the request for that which they do not currenly have. A for-profit company is going to add that which will make them the most money.

Even turning these over to charities is a bad idea. Because then you are at the mercy of what the charity deems worthy.
 
Here is some additional info that seems to be ignored by the idea of privatizing public libraries.

http://www.publicagenda.org/files/research_facts/long_overdue_summary.pdf

This survey found:

"Most Americans say that if their library shut down because of lack of funding they would feel that something essential and important has been lost, affecting the whole community (78%) In contrast, just 17% said while something important was lost, it really only affects a few people in the community and only 3% said the loss would not be important."

"The American public has a clear sense of what is absolutely crucial in a local library for basic success. More than 8 in 10 Americans believe that keeping services free should be a very high priority. Having enough current books for children, enough reference materials, friendly, knowledgeable library staff, and good programs for children and teens are also considered absolute essentials for libraries."

"Faced with the prospect of local libraries in trouble, even non-users say they would raise taxes rather than cut back services or charge fees. Asked "If local libraries need additional funds to continue operation," increasing taxes to cover the necessary costs was the most popular answer (59% of library users, 47% of non-users) - ahead of "the library charging people who use it" (26% library users, 35% non-users) or "the library reducing the services that it offers" (17% library users, 23% non-users)."
 
KingCondanomation said:
My experience with private entities is that they tend to stock more what people demand.


Building on my earlier point, it is quite likely that MORE people and kids will access the library as they are more interested in trying to satisfy their customers rather than follow some bureaucrat's directive of what HE thinks people want.

Less is being cut here because they are being kept alive by private interest, surely them being kept open in ANY capacity is better than them closing? (Hint: This is your test to see whether you go by stubbornness or logic).
Click to expand...

They stock what people demand. So they stock what is popular and see no need to stock the books that are only checked out occasionally?? By that logic, they would have plenty of Reader's Digest and very few pieces of classic literature or reference books.

No, you are not testing whether I am going by logic or stubbornness. In order for that to be a test of those choices I would have to agree with the premise that the libraries be closed regardless of the cost. I do not. I think that the public libraries should be reopened and the politician that saw to their closing should be run out of town. And according to the study I referenced in my previous post, the majority of americans agree with me.

There is almost no service that a city or county provides that is as important as a FREE public library. There are plenty of book stores already. And plenty of second hand book stores. So, by buying a book and reselling it, you are already "renting" books. And a corporation will not stock items that run counter to its interests.
 
Onceler said:
I bet Dano believes he had something to do with this, just like he believes that when people leave or take a break from JPP, it's because he did...
Click to expand...

Almost certainly not, but who knows, maybe they got the idea from someone or at least some support from those who saw posts about it somewhere.
 
Superfreak said:
That is bullshit dano... you will eliminate the poors access to the system if you start charging for it. You will also tend to get less of a selection, not a greater selection. Our library system takes requests.

If they have 500 requests for an additional copy of 'movie/book x' or one request for a copy of a movie/book they do not currently carry, they will fill the request for that which they do not currenly have. A for-profit company is going to add that which will make them the most money.
Click to expand...
That is probably true but so what? Don't you think they should carry more what people demand?

Superfreak said:
Even turning these over to charities is a bad idea. Because then you are at the mercy of what the charity deems worthy.
Click to expand...
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?
 
KingCondanomation said:
That is probably true but so what? Don't you think they should carry more what people demand?
Click to expand...

No I do not. I believe that the service that the public library provides is critical BECAUSE it is not based on popularity.

To make sure that there are copies of Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Homer, Twain, Terkel, Clarke, Azimov, and more are available to the people, regardless of how popular they are.

The unpopular information is what must also be preserved. The ideas of Stalin, Castro, and more must also be preserved and available.
 
KingCondanomation said:
But Super, they would have closed these anyway, what have they got to lose?
Click to expand...

If we are assuming that there is no other option and that the public library is lost forever, then we should mourn the passing.

But I would say that what happened is that people were unaware of what was going to be done.

I would say they should mount a protest and demand that their public libraries be reopened.
 
Solitary said:
They stock what people demand. So they stock what is popular and see no need to stock the books that are only checked out occasionally?? By that logic, they would have plenty of Reader's Digest and very few pieces of classic literature or reference books.
Click to expand...
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.

Solitary said:
No, you are not testing whether I am going by logic or stubbornness. In order for that to be a test of those choices I would have to agree with the premise that the libraries be closed regardless of the cost. I do not. I think that the public libraries should be reopened and the politician that saw to their closing should be run out of town. And according to the study I referenced in my previous post, the majority of americans agree with me.
Click to expand...
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?

Solitary said:
There is almost no service that a city or county provides that is as important as a FREE public library. There are plenty of book stores already. And plenty of second hand book stores. So, by buying a book and reselling it, you are already "renting" books. And a corporation will not stock items that run counter to its interests.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top