So, there's this idea that our state operates for the common well-being, rather than for the good of a specific class or caste of people. For everyone. Liberty and justice for all, and more.
I heard this little piece on the radio a couple of days ago. The writer observed that if public libraries didn't exist, and someone thought them up today, there's no way they would become a reality. You can go through this thought-exercise yourself. Imagine there are no public libraries, and some guy comes along and says, "Hey, we should all have access to books. And music, and video, and newspapers, and magazines. For free." And someone would come along and say, "Well that's a great idea, but it's going to be very expensive. How exactly do you propose to fund this?" And the answer would be, "We should pay higher taxes. I know that sounds crazy, but maintaining a healthy democracy depends on having citizens who are well-educated and can make informed decisions. Further, the American promise of equality demands that as many people as possible have access to as much of our cultural wealth--the work of our best writers, musicians, and artists--as is possible." And the people would respond, "No new taxes!" And the publishing houses and the music recording industry and Hollywood would all say that giving everyone this access would hurt their profits and infringe upon their intellectual property rights. And no libraries would exist.
It is really amazing that we have public libraries the way that we do in the U.S. (In other countries, it is very rare to find lending libraries with open stacks that you can browse and borrow material from.) And we have free concerts, especially in big-city summertimes. It's great! But I'm worried that as a society, our appreciation of these things doesn't really match their worth. We are stingy about what we spend for the public good versus for our own personal enjoyment, whether the cost is in dollars, time, or service.
All for now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
appreciate your thoughts.
i live in a blue state. and in this blue state, i live in an area that is so blue that it's purple. so, maybe, just maybe, i am seeing the world thru purple tinted glasses.
i've gone through the thought exercise.
here, taxpayers support the public library. new libraries are being built and old ones are being renovated--all on the taxpapers dime (federal, state and local $$$). so i don't agree with the writer from that radio show. i've found the taxpayers to be very generous--as you say, you can browse thru libraries with open stacks and attend free concerts in public parks while being shade by public art. somebody is paying for it.
at any rate, i recently skimed thomas friedman's book, "the world is flat". he asserts that the tech age has made information widely available for all. people and countries that aggressively seeks it (china, and india in particular) can and are beginning to prosper.
maybe in this tech age, libraries don't need books, shelves and cavernous spaces. the collective knowledge may be available with just a few key strokes. maybe i shouldn't take it for granted and should demonstrate my appreciation of the internet more--where can i make a personally meaningful financial contribution?
hop-on-pop
appreciate your thoughts as well. but i think you'll find that even in your lovely blue state, public libraries are shortening their hours or closing altogether (as in the case of the Salinas public library, notable because of that city's association with John Steinbeck, arguably one of the best writers America has ever produced) because of lack of funds. it seems to me that cities are centers of both culture and liberal spirit, and that they will maintain themselves as such, and we don't have to worry too much about the libraries and music halls of san francisco and chicago. but the character of the nation, and our values, aren't coming out of our cities. i think i'd prefer it if they were, but then again, who knows what that would look like.
i also thought the story was interesting because of its comment on how industries work to protect things like intellectual property rights or their right to make a bigger profit and so forth, and we pretty much accept those arguments, i think. i mean there's some room for negotiation but basically we accept that these are sensible concepts that need protection.
Post a Comment