Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Strnad
While there are some truly poverty-stricken people who patronize libraries, very few of the people I see there are wearing cardboard on their feet. They have a few bucks, and they can afford some modest fees. After all, they have an ereader that set them back a hundred bucks or more, so why should all the media be totally free?
Just because something is worthwhile, like a public library, that doesn't mean the government has to totally underwrite it. A library should very reasonably expect to get some government money, do some private fundraising, and charge a few fees. It's a mix.
And I agree about the DVDs. When did public libraries become government sponsored Blockbusters? Is the best use of tax money to loan out free copies of Cabin Boy? Surely there's somebody out there who needs, oh, I don't know...food, maybe, or health care?
|
Alas, in as much as you cannot tell if someone has chronic pain issues just by looking at them, neither can you tell if someone is poor just by looking at them.
Quite a few poor people have wealthier relatives who can help with hand-me-down clothes and gifted eReaders. Just because you can't realistically pay for eBook rentals doesn't mean that you're going to be walking around wearing cardboard on your feet.
DVDs increase foot traffic to libraries, which increases the pertinence of libraries and helps them to keep funding coming in. They also serve as a sort of educational "loss leader" -- many people will go there for the DVDs and come away with books for themselves or their children.
Furthermore, just because something is entertaining (like a movie) doesn't mean it is not also educational or valuable. The same argument could be made to remove manga from libraries (which my local library carries, bless their hearts): "Why are all these Japanese comics here?! When did a library become a comic import service?"
EVERY government service could be argued against in light of the shameful fact that someone, somewhere, is starving to death in America right now. Why are we expanding the highway when people are starving? Why are we funding libraries when people are dying? Why are we providing unemployment benefits when someone is worse off and needs that money more?
The fact that there are people out there that need government help is not a good argument for getting rid of roads, libraries, and unemployment benefits. It's an argument for raising the money needed to help those people, yes, but not at the cost of every other socially beneficial service.