6 ms·

But as a fellow taxpayer, isn't it also my money? And of course that wholly ignores cases where the books are donated or acquired for free from publishers, whi

But as a fellow taxpayer, isn't it also my money? And of course that wholly ignores cases where the books are donated or acquired for free from publishers, which often happens with libraries. Taken to it's conclusion here you are saying that every citizen has veto power over the individual uses of any public resource, so, like, can I ban all pickup trucks from highways? We shouldn't spend public funds maintaining roads for them when they do significantly more damage than sedans.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
Taking my ideas to their conclusion means that everyone pays for what they use, which is not what the policies you are suggesting will do. The contrapositive of “you use it if and only if you pay for it” says that if you don’t use it you don’t pay for it. So if state roads followed my principle (ie. they ran like private roads), then sure you can ban pickup trucks. But since you prevent them from using it, you don’t get to make them pay for it.
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  But that isn't what you are saying. You are saying that even if you use a library you can ban other people from using it in the way they desire, or from offering certain services to others, whether or not those people also pay for it. And you're going further than saying that this is done in a democratic manner, but instead that any individual can enjoin the library from providing services. Maybe that's not what you intend to be arguing for, but it is the argument you're putting forward.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - joshuamorton 3y ago
      Yes. You didn't say "libraries are a violation of the NAP and shouldn't exist" or whatever, you said "You aren’t being censored when someone doesn’t let you buy books with their money." And, key to this issue are that 1. It isn't your money, it's state money and the state democratically decided to purchase books with it, for the benefit of the citizenry because an educated populace is good for the general welfare. And 2. You didn't object to the generic purchase of books, but these particular books. And yes, using the state and state funding to disfavor or limit access to certain viewpoints or categories of information is definitionally censorship. Much as with public schools, as long as the state decides they exist in general, they have to be funded fairly without a bias towards our against any particular viewpoint other than, like, education. If you want to take the principled position that libraries are bad say that, and nothing else. Otherwise, I'll respond to what you say.
      - alphanullmeric 3y ago
        I’m saying it right now. Public libraries like the ones we currently have should not exist. That’s the stance I’m taking, you should not have the right to force me to buy you books whether they are books that align with my politics or not. If it’s voluntary because it was voted for, surely anything else voted for by the same governments that voted for taxation is also voluntary right? Shall I enumerate a few examples to check your consistency?
        joshuamorton 3y ago
        Thanks for clarifying :) I never said anything about voluntary. I believe that one of the core functions of government is to exist as the legitimate body by which we compel other people to do things. The exact mechanics vary from government to government (for example libertarians might limit government to compelling people to obey the NAP and meet their contractual obligations, while other forms of democracy obligate people to do whatever the electorate decides (which, technically, is also what happens in a libertarian society!). This is true whether or not I agree with a particular policy of the government. Governments are legitimate even when they do things I, personally, disagree with. And in fact I generally think that to effectively function governments must be able to operate with a bluntness that will leave some people unhappy (you're free to read that as "I don't believe a libertarian society can effectively function at scale). Just to check, what do you propose society do with people who do not have the economic resources to access published works normally? Should the lower class be limited to only propaganda provided by the upper classes? If not how do we ensure free access to information for everyone and prosperity and general welfare of those less fortunate? Or, actually, since as far as I can tell your objection applies to all taxation, how does a government maintain funding? Like on your framing it isn't ethical to force me to pay the salary of a bureaucrat I don't elect, so how do you maintain the judiciary and executive needed to function?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 3y ago
I definitely agree that nobody should have veto power. If Illinois taxpayers want to outsource the job of socializing their children to the American Library Association, that’s their prerogative. I’m objecting to the framing of this as a “Bill of Rights.”
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- runarberg 3y ago
  I’m confused by your framing, how is banning book bans outsourcing the job of socializing children? What role do potential book bans have on children’s social development? I’m also a bit curious why a child’s right to access certain literature can’t be specified in a “Bill of Rights”.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    You’re begging the question. The taxpayers are just deciding what materials to provide through a taxpayer-funded service, no different than the taxpayers choosing what public transit routes to provide. Since public libraries are an important vehicle for socializing children, the public is entitled to curate the material available in libraries towards those ends. Again, it’s no different than choosing public transit routes that service the voting public’s particular priorities. And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. The government can’t dictate to parents what materials they allow their children to access. But the public doesn’t have to pay and make that material available in public libraries.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      > And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. I might have a difference idea of democracy from you, but this feels a deep undemocratic way to go. Democracy dies in the darkness, free access to information is one of the cornerstones of democracy. All democracies have some sort of a public archive which distributes knowledge to the general public, most of the time for free. In the absence of such system you will at best have aristocracy. So yes, if we want to live in a democracy—or at least how I understand democracy—everybody should have the “right” to have the government provide them with free access to any particular information. Particularly in the school system as a part of public and universal education (another important aspect of democracy). Regarding the public transit analogy. Ideally in a democratic society where transportation equity is provided, the public should be entitled to provide input into the transportation system, but everybody living inside a reasonable density should be provided with some transit option (I live in a pretty rural place near Seattle but still I have two bus lines near my home which go to two ferry terminals, where there are four ferry lines, I consider my transportation needs “provided for” in the system). However in this ideal democracy, the input only goes to policy makers, who ultimately decide (or curate) frequency, routes, etc. based on both these inputs, but also experts in the field. If everybody is covered, and riders have some input, I would call that system democratic. What wouldn’t be democratic is if non-riding taxpayers would decide that people in certain area (say Vashon Island) shouldn’t get any buses. Or that buses should be banned in some areas (say between Woodenville and Bothell).

alphanullmeric 3y ago

Taking my ideas to their conclusion means that everyone pays for what they use, which is not what the policies you are suggesting will do. The contrapositive of “you use it if and only if you pay for it” says that if you don’t use it you don’t pay for it. So if state roads followed my principle (ie. they ran like private roads), then sure you can ban pickup trucks. But since you prevent them from using it, you don’t get to make them pay for it.

joshuamorton 3y ago
But that isn't what you are saying. You are saying that even if you use a library you can ban other people from using it in the way they desire, or from offering certain services to others, whether or not those people also pay for it. And you're going further than saying that this is done in a democratic manner, but instead that any individual can enjoin the library from providing services. Maybe that's not what you intend to be arguing for, but it is the argument you're putting forward.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - joshuamorton 3y ago
    Yes. You didn't say "libraries are a violation of the NAP and shouldn't exist" or whatever, you said "You aren’t being censored when someone doesn’t let you buy books with their money." And, key to this issue are that 1. It isn't your money, it's state money and the state democratically decided to purchase books with it, for the benefit of the citizenry because an educated populace is good for the general welfare. And 2. You didn't object to the generic purchase of books, but these particular books. And yes, using the state and state funding to disfavor or limit access to certain viewpoints or categories of information is definitionally censorship. Much as with public schools, as long as the state decides they exist in general, they have to be funded fairly without a bias towards our against any particular viewpoint other than, like, education. If you want to take the principled position that libraries are bad say that, and nothing else. Otherwise, I'll respond to what you say.
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      I’m saying it right now. Public libraries like the ones we currently have should not exist. That’s the stance I’m taking, you should not have the right to force me to buy you books whether they are books that align with my politics or not. If it’s voluntary because it was voted for, surely anything else voted for by the same governments that voted for taxation is also voluntary right? Shall I enumerate a few examples to check your consistency?
      - joshuamorton 3y ago
        Thanks for clarifying :) I never said anything about voluntary. I believe that one of the core functions of government is to exist as the legitimate body by which we compel other people to do things. The exact mechanics vary from government to government (for example libertarians might limit government to compelling people to obey the NAP and meet their contractual obligations, while other forms of democracy obligate people to do whatever the electorate decides (which, technically, is also what happens in a libertarian society!). This is true whether or not I agree with a particular policy of the government. Governments are legitimate even when they do things I, personally, disagree with. And in fact I generally think that to effectively function governments must be able to operate with a bluntness that will leave some people unhappy (you're free to read that as "I don't believe a libertarian society can effectively function at scale). Just to check, what do you propose society do with people who do not have the economic resources to access published works normally? Should the lower class be limited to only propaganda provided by the upper classes? If not how do we ensure free access to information for everyone and prosperity and general welfare of those less fortunate? Or, actually, since as far as I can tell your objection applies to all taxation, how does a government maintain funding? Like on your framing it isn't ethical to force me to pay the salary of a bureaucrat I don't elect, so how do you maintain the judiciary and executive needed to function?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 3y ago

I definitely agree that nobody should have veto power. If Illinois taxpayers want to outsource the job of socializing their children to the American Library Association, that’s their prerogative. I’m objecting to the framing of this as a “Bill of Rights.”

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
runarberg 3y ago
I’m confused by your framing, how is banning book bans outsourcing the job of socializing children? What role do potential book bans have on children’s social development? I’m also a bit curious why a child’s right to access certain literature can’t be specified in a “Bill of Rights”.
- rayiner 3y ago
  You’re begging the question. The taxpayers are just deciding what materials to provide through a taxpayer-funded service, no different than the taxpayers choosing what public transit routes to provide. Since public libraries are an important vehicle for socializing children, the public is entitled to curate the material available in libraries towards those ends. Again, it’s no different than choosing public transit routes that service the voting public’s particular priorities. And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. The government can’t dictate to parents what materials they allow their children to access. But the public doesn’t have to pay and make that material available in public libraries.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    > And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. I might have a difference idea of democracy from you, but this feels a deep undemocratic way to go. Democracy dies in the darkness, free access to information is one of the cornerstones of democracy. All democracies have some sort of a public archive which distributes knowledge to the general public, most of the time for free. In the absence of such system you will at best have aristocracy. So yes, if we want to live in a democracy—or at least how I understand democracy—everybody should have the “right” to have the government provide them with free access to any particular information. Particularly in the school system as a part of public and universal education (another important aspect of democracy). Regarding the public transit analogy. Ideally in a democratic society where transportation equity is provided, the public should be entitled to provide input into the transportation system, but everybody living inside a reasonable density should be provided with some transit option (I live in a pretty rural place near Seattle but still I have two bus lines near my home which go to two ferry terminals, where there are four ferry lines, I consider my transportation needs “provided for” in the system). However in this ideal democracy, the input only goes to policy makers, who ultimately decide (or curate) frequency, routes, etc. based on both these inputs, but also experts in the field. If everybody is covered, and riders have some input, I would call that system democratic. What wouldn’t be democratic is if non-riding taxpayers would decide that people in certain area (say Vashon Island) shouldn’t get any buses. Or that buses should be banned in some areas (say between Woodenville and Bothell).