Keeping It Public (If the Libraries Don't Sway You, the Blazing House Might)

[unhappycamper]

Keeping It Public (If the Libraries Don't Sway You, the Blazing House Might)
by Amy Traub
Published on Monday, October 4, 2010 by The Huffington Post

Last week, the New York Times reported on Library Systems & Services, a private, for-profit company that an increasing number of towns are contracting to take over their local public libraries. The company pares budgets and turns a profit by, among others things, replacing long-term employees with those who will "work." In the article, CEO Frank Pezzanite mocks "this American flag, apple pie thing about libraries" and ridicules the idea that "somehow they have been put in the category of a sacred organization." The problem? Local residents seem to believe there is something all-American - and possibly sacred - about this community institution. I know where they're coming from.

Public libraries represent the best of American tradition of local communities chipping in for the common good, while advancing democratic values of free inquiry and universal access.

Through our local libraries, we all contribute to create a public space where anyone can access the world's outstanding literature, music, and film; popular entertainment; the fruits of human knowledge and insight; computer and internet access; resources for jobseekers and students; edifying speakers; programs that engage schoolchildren; and story hours that delight the youngest members of our community. I'm never going to check out that new Janet Evanovich novel (or, for that matter, Bill O'Reilly's latest bestseller) but I'm damn glad my tax dollars paid for it to be available on the shelves. The common resource is bigger than any of our individual tastes.

Something of that is lost when a profit-driven company turns a community institution into a source of private gain. It's not just the likelihood that public employees earning middle-class salaries will likely be turned out in favor of less experienced staff - although I've written in opposition to that as well. Rather, it's the idea, articulated by American Library Association President Robert Stevens in response to the Times article, that for-profit libraries may not "remain directly accountable to the publics they serve." Or, in the words of the late historian Tony Judt, "shifting ownership onto businessmen allows the state to relinquish moral obligations... A social service provided by a private company does not present itself as a collective good to which all citizens have a right."

The point may be subtle when we're talking about computers and books on a shelf (no matter how critical a part of democracy) but it's hard to ignore a house on fire. This morning at Think Progress, Zaid Jilani describes the situation in Obion County, Tennessee, where fire services are funded by subscription fees rather than general tax revenue. Those who pay the fees can call the fire department to save lives and extinguish blazes. For those who can't or won't shell out for the service, Jilani's headline says it all: Tennessee County's Subscription-Based Firefighters Watch As Family Home Burns Down. Maybe there's something to the "American flag, apple pie" thing about public services after all...

[stray cat]

1. Government services could all be on a pay per service basis - not unique to private

[pansypoo53219]

3. the way of the south.

but TN has a stupid tax syxtem like CA. you pay FEES to dump your garbage. SO, LOT OF LITTER O THE ROAD. it's the FIRE FEE. see. they have low taxes.

[LWolf]

2. I don't need to be swayed, but, apparently, most of the rest of the nation does.

Including way too many DUers. :(

[littlewolf]

4. way confused

I really don't mind my tax money supporting free libraries ....
I think it is a really good idea for my tax money to support
firefighters and EMT's .... ( I have vol for both .... the FF's don't need me
and the EMT's sometimes use me if they are short ..)
how can ppl think this is a good idea ....
I can support cutting duplication and waste to either
lower taxes or better spend the same amount of money ..
but this .... NOPE ....

[NuttyFluffers]

5. this comes from ignorance and fear of the word "taxes."

taxes is perhaps the most equitable and cheapest method of resource funding for service distribution humans have developed. and yet people are perpetually whipped into a frenzy to hate and fear taxes. we are the gov't, the world is no longer feudal. therefore our taxes is going to the "kitty" to help and support all of us. basically, it's asking people to invest in themselves, their neighbors, their community, and their nation -- it's perhaps one of the most patriotic and loving thing to do (determining how it's spent is vitally important, tho).

however, because it is obligatory people feel it is a burden. thus taxes are rapidly equated as an evil.

bonds are worse because they allow some people to not only evade taxation, but also profit from interest on the borrowed funds. this allows the richest among us to circumvent taxation for the advantage to safely store their money -- for a nice profitable sum in the future. this is not shared effort of the people, this is exploitation of a cash-strapped civic entity.

fees are worse because they are voluntary and thus lead to the disintegration of the social compact. they result in being higher than taxes individually because there has to be an allowance expecting a percentage of people opting out of the fee. further, those who choose to opt out of the fee tend to still need the service, but try to circumvent it by doing risky behavior to the commons. thus safety and community are agitated into a less secure and stable state, and resentment builds as these freeloaders offer a tempting alternative to communal support. by freeloading they give the illusion of rugged individualism, but really are parasitically living off of the body politic.

all of this because people are somehow praised for not "paying their fair share," and evading the obligatory taxation. but this is Robin Hood in reverse. however, people are easily swayed that requirements are punishments, sharing is weakness, taxes are evil, and any form of rebellion is sexy-cool. the human mob is tragically easy to manipulate.

[Kablooie]

6. "The public good" is an anathema to the conservative right.

Their philosophy is that every person for himself.
If you can grab more for yourself, more power to you.
If you can't manage enough to live, you should die and decrease the surplus population. (Dickens had it right.)

I knew a Libertarian at work who told me that the only thing that was important to him was supporting his family.
He disagreed with paying for anything that did not go directly towards this end.
He didn't see that paying for more distant public services would ensure his family would be supported in the future even if he wasn't able to.
But he was making over $250,000 a year and so put no value on public services and complained about all the money the government stole from him every week.