Libraries and the Culture Wars

[dismalist]

Not much disagreement here. Factually, the data come from surveys, which are anonymous, so out shouldn't matter much. But that's not the point of anything. It's the empathy of neighbors that matters, as I said.

A right to be out exists already. How that right is received depends on our fellows. These do exist. Getting along with people is something that all of us have to, or have had to, learn.

The right to see books cannot be unlimited unless one pays for the books oneself. I cannot ask the public to finance my own public library, given my own tastes that diverge widely from the community in which I live.

Since this is about public  libraries, the ability to use some or many public libraries under a highly decentralized decision making system is a good deal for everybody on average in my estimation. That is my political value judgement. I'd much prefer a market for libraries, yielding much more variety, but that won't happen.

But who is responsible? Is it the responsibility of a person to hide whatever aspects of their identity might face disagreement? Or is it the responsibility of the person who has disagreements to behave in a civil manner?

France is an interesting example with the Muslim population. The French want to be officially secular - liberte, egalite, fraternite and all of that. So... if a Muslim chooses to wear a hijab or a burkini, and she is harassed, it is considered her fault for showing everyone she is Muslim and opening herself up to criticism.

The French make the excuse that wearing Christian symbols is also a concern so they are not discriminating. Still, if someone wearing a rosary were harassed for wearing it, who would be considered the guilty party?

That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime? To keep it simple and use the French example: Do I have the right to wear a hijab? Do I have the right to wear a necklace with a christian cross? With the star of David? May I wear none? May I wear any?

Given these possible combinations, it's clear the French State is seriously misguided in its actual policy, in my opinion.

It's much preferable here in the US, where we can wear any, or even all, or none. The harassers are liable.

I do not have to like it if you wear a christian cross. I may not want to see it. It's upon me to accept your taste nationwide.

But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.

The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized, like in bookstores.

[Wahoo Redux]

That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?

But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.

The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.

You are "hurt" by books you "see?"

So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?

[dismalist]

That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?

But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.

The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.

You are "hurt" by books you "see?"

So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?

I have all three volumes of Das Kapital, reprint Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1924 right next to me. [I only ever perused the first volume.] It pains me to look at them.

Hit me harder; hit me harder! :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?

But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.

The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.

You are "hurt" by books you "see?"

So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?

I have all three volumes of Das Kapital, reprint Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1924 right next to me. [I only ever perused the first volume.] It pains me to look at them.

Hit me harder; hit me harder! :-)

I'm only paraphrasing what you posted, you know.

[Kron3007]

That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?

But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.

The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.

You are "hurt" by books you "see?"

So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?

On the other side though, there may be people in your community we that suffer greater hurt by not having access to the books you don't like.  What makes your interests more important than theirs?  You can simply not sign out the book you don't like if it is there, they may not be able to access it at all if it is not there. 

Sending libraries so they only include information you agree with is so anti-democratic it isn't funny. 

[marshwiggle]

That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?

But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.

The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.

You are "hurt" by books you "see?"

So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?

On the other side though, there may be people in your community we that suffer greater hurt by not having access to the books you don't like.  What makes your interests more important than theirs?  You can simply not sign out the book you don't like if it is there, they may not be able to access it at all if it is not there. 

Sending libraries so they only include information you agree with is so anti-democratic it isn't funny.

So it's undemocratic to remove books saying inter-racial or homosexual relationships are wrong?

[Wahoo Redux]

That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?

But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.

The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.

You are "hurt" by books you "see?"

So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?

On the other side though, there may be people in your community we that suffer greater hurt by not having access to the books you don't like.  What makes your interests more important than theirs?  You can simply not sign out the book you don't like if it is there, they may not be able to access it at all if it is not there. 

Sending libraries so they only include information you agree with is so anti-democratic it isn't funny.

So it's undemocratic to remove books saying inter-racial or homosexual relationships are wrong?

Yes.

[dismalist]

Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.

Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.

Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.

[Kron3007]

Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.

Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.

Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.

Based on the data you provided, the lowest level of LGB identifying people is over 1% (the real number is likely much higher than the survey shows for various reasons, but...).   This is a minority group, but large enough that their reading interests should be included.  More importantly, they should not be specifically and methodically excluded, which is what is happening.

The irony is that the people screaming about "cancel culture" are the same people that are cancelling this culture.


           

[Wahoo Redux]

Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.

Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.

Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.

You're saying the same thing over and over.

The librarian is the "democratic means" by which books are selected.  That's why you pay them.

The "local community" still needs to obey the law.

While you are not suggesting it directly, you are arguing de facto for book burnings or the equivalent by the local bigots and hotheads who are "hurt" by books they do not like.  Anyplace or time you've hear of this before? 

[Wahoo Redux]

Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.

Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.

Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.

Based on the data you provided, the lowest level of LGB identifying people is over 1% (the real number is likely much higher than the survey shows for various reasons, but...).   This is a minority group, but large enough that their reading interests should be included.  More importantly, they should not be specifically and methodically excluded, which is what is happening.

The irony is that the people screaming about "cancel culture" are the same people that are cancelling this culture.


         

How many LGBTQ books are in any given library?  I am betting it is less than 1% of all the books shelved. 

The population is represented.

[dismalist]

Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.

Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.

Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.

Based on the data you provided, the lowest level of LGB identifying people is over 1% (the real number is likely much higher than the survey shows for various reasons, but...).   This is a minority group, but large enough that their reading interests should be included.  More importantly, they should not be specifically and methodically excluded, which is what is happening.

The irony is that the people screaming about "cancel culture" are the same people that are cancelling this culture.


         

Who gets what share of the cash to buy one's preferred books of course could be handled differently and non locally.

But that's not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is pollution!

Take a hypothetical case of a largely Jewish community with a local public library. Some nutjob from either inside or outside the community wants the library to hold Mein Kampf. Suppose most people in the community would be offended by that, and would not use the library anymore. That one nutjob, if he got his way, would benefit, but lots of others would lose. It seems to me obvious that the local community must have a veto right.

Or take a different example, probably not even hypothetical, of a privately owned feminist bookstore. We would surely grant the owners of such stores the right to exclude anti-feminist publications and certainly not force such publications on them. And we free pressers can feel good about this because, hell, if you want to push anti-feminist opinions, open your own bookstore! Dare I say: Open your own library? ;-) That would be a solution, too!

So, who owns the library?

This question has remained unaddressed, except by me. I suspect it's because many would fear the outcome of a decentralized democratic procedure would leave them too few books. I doubt that needs to be worried about in many, many, but not all places.While I am sure there will be many different holding patterns by libraries, others seems to want guaranteed uniformity. But me, I care only if the procedure benefits the most for the least. And decentralized democracy does just that in this case.

[dismalist]

Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.

Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.

Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.

You're saying the same thing over and over.

The librarian is the "democratic means" by which books are selected.  That's why you pay them.

The "local community" still needs to obey the law.

While you are not suggesting it directly, you are arguing de facto for book burnings or the equivalent by the local bigots and hotheads who are "hurt" by books they do not like.  Anyplace or time you've hear of this before?

"...only by varied iteration can alien conceptions be forced on reluctant minds."
--Herbert Spencer, The Data of Ethics, 1879

[Wahoo Redux]

So, who owns the library?

This question has remained unaddressed, except by me.

Have you read the thread?

America owns the libraries.  We all do.  Even your local tax dollars do not exclude you from being American and having to follow American laws and ethics.

That is an answer you avoid.

And what is not clear at all is that these theoretical books you allude to are offensive or bothersome to anyone but a very small cadre of reactionary, hyper-zealous nutjobs.

My state university library stocks Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, books from Focus on the Family, and The Anarchists' Cookbook.  It's the way of libraries.

I'll give you credit for being stubborn after you have clearly lost and most of the participants have piled on you with pretty sound responses to your argument.

[Wahoo Redux]

"...only by varied iteration can alien conceptions be forced on reluctant minds."
--Herbert Spencer, The Data of Ethics, 1879

Well, your reluctant mind sure isn't grasping alien conceptions.

That's a great slogan for a re-education camp, BTW.  Love the "forced" business there.  Very telling.
Good job.