What is the Capitalist/Free Market Perspective on Public Television and Libraries?

[BuddyRey]

OK, so you guys are successfully re-educating me on quite a few issues (school vouchers, gun control, etc.) but I'm still just a wee foundling, a "limp-bertarian" if you will. I can at least partially grasp the concept of government intervention in business and services leading to a decline in quality, but I think I've found an ENORMOUS example that flies in the face of this axiom; public television and libraries. What got me thinking about this was watching a YouTube video of Fred ("Mister") Rogers speaking at the U.S. Senate in 1969, asking to have the funding for public television continued rather than used to fight the Vietnam War.

Commercial television has been debased and degraded to the quality and consistency of liquid excrement. It's constantly pandering to the lowest common denominator, becoming dominated by petty gossip shows and "reality TV." There is virtually nothing of informational or educational substance for discerning viewers who are, sadly, a minority of the public and don't have as much of a voice in a demand-based market. Where there's no demand for intellectually stimulating television, none will exist.

On the other hand, public television (public radio too, for that matter) consistently provides great programming of intellectual substance for all ages, provides much fairer political forums/debates (if you don't believe me, watch the Democratic debate that PBS hosted recently. Gravel and Kucinich got near-equal time to the frontrunners!), and doesn't feel the need to program mindless drivel and T&A for ratings.

A Republican form of government (which is what most conservatives and libertarians seem to advocate) holds as one of its core tenets the belief that individual rights should not be subject to the whims of large "groups" or majorities. This is a commendable position that I personally agree with, but how can the interests of individuals be protected and their voices/messages heard when majority demand dictates the quality and content of the media?

The same flaws of commercial television could concievably present themselves if public libraries were privatized. Right now, I could log on to the website of my local library and browse through obscure, wonderful books that absolutely NOBODY reads, because they're there anyway. I enjoy that freedom of choice, and this freedom simply wouldn't exist if a market dictated what books a library would carry and what books it would not, based on public demand.

So I just wanted to know what the free market thinkers of this board thought of public television and libraries, and what, if anything, they would do to insure the quality of these institutions in a system with considerably less government funding.

[fsk]

In a free market, there would be private libraries. You would pay a membership fee. For example, it doesn't really pay to keep a book after you've finished reading it. If you belonged to a private library, you could buy a book and then sell it to the library when you're finished with it.

In the present, there are some private libraries that cater to specialized interests. However, the existence of public libraries minimizes the demand for private libraries.

If you take the extreme viewpoint that intellectual property has no legitimacy at all, private electronic libraries could make many books widely available cheaply.

Public television, with funding paid by the government, is not "truly free". Government funding comes with censorship and restrictions. A truly free broadcasting model would be pay-per-view broadcasts over the Internet, sort of like YouTube.

The problem is that all broadcast television has a government-endorsed monopoly.

[hard@work]

I like public libraries. I would vote to have our city build them. I don't see why we would have to be rid of public libraries anymore than police or judges.

[BrianH]

Its a good question. And there must be lots of other things as well, which I suspect is why many journalists write off Ron Paul as completely nuts. I for one would not want to live in a society where libraries were only for profit entities. Seems pretty sad to me - McBooks instead of public libraries? So many of my friends think libertarians are way out there on the fringe eliminating government for all but the most essential public safety concerns. I prefer to counter them with "Ron Paul would deligate that to the states and let them decide". Isn't that the fairest answer to all of these questions?

[axiomata]

I like public libraries. I would vote to have our city build them. I don't see why we would have to be rid of public libraries anymore than police or judges.
I agree. I would note vote to lower property taxes if that meant cutting library funding. I like PBS model as well (though it is not perfect.) I don't know their exact budget but some of their funding comes from corporate sponsorships, endowments, and "viewers like you."

Education is essential. I follow a unique strain of libertarianism that as far as I know of, I am the only proponent. I believe in governmental funding for children, but not adults. (Though I am of course not against private competition in these matters.)

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Well I do see the benefit to public libraries but I think that should be a function of local cities to choose whether they want one or not and how best to fund it.

You could only have private libraries that would most likely be organized by a non-profit organization(s) and operate on donations. I think that model would be quite successful in most areas.

As to public television, I guess it has its positive aspects and negative aspects. I think having advertisements to pay for the programming is a good thing. I do not see any real place for the federal government to be involved in it on Constitutional grounds. The states do have the authority to be involved. Personally Public TV is not something in my crosshairs as it is not an entitlement program redistributing wealth by stealing from some and giving to others.

[torchbearer]

A private library would be no different from a blockbuster. pay a low monthly fee and "check out" the media you want to read or view... return it when you are done.

[ThePieSwindler]

uh, the free market is awesome, and im a HUGE believer in non-intervention, both abroad and in the market. But simple, basic local things like libraries and public schools are fine, sincethe vast majority of the population benefits from them. Having things paid for by the government is not bad as long as it is done by local government, where government DOES happen to be more efficient and the townspeople can really have a say in how their tax money is spent, thus there is no inefficient bureaucracy to ruin the process. Localized and decentralized is the way to go with things that should generally be run by the government. Nationalization is the biggest issue that really ruins ALOT.

Then again, private libraries would work just as well. So who knows. BUt it wont happen anytime soon...

[Brasil Branco]

I don't think you can make a profit with a physical library which is privatized.

And even if you do, what do you do about children who can't afford to pay? I mean, I find the public library system as it is pretty good. The public library I went to in the States is better than my university library in England!

[BuddyRey]

A private library would be no different from a blockbuster. pay a low monthly fee and "check out" the media you want to read or view... return it when you are done.

That isn't exactly the most encouraging comparison, IMHO. Blockbuster sucks. They don't have any substantive selection of films from before 1975, their documentary and foreign titles are paltry and obvious, and their prices are far from reasonable. Besides that, there's so much lobbying power controlling them, including Christian Right groups, that they actually can't carry certain things.

[jblosser]

0. Read Bastiat's _The Law_, if you haven't. It explains better than anything else why any kind of "positive law" is dangerous. You won't need to ask questions like this if you read and understand what Bastiat explains there. He explains it way better than I or anyone else here can.

1. The notion that government has to provide something or it won't happen is pretty much always fallacious. Government is institutionalized force. The difference between public and private television and libraries is that the public ones get their funding from the government using the power of violence to take money from everyone and pay for these things, whether people like it or not. Even if libraries are good to have, does that make any sense?

2. It's not really possible to compare what our current "market" produces to what a real market would produce. Keep in mind our public is more poorly educated and mentally broken than they would be in a free society due to the control exercised and enforced by the school system and welfare state. The kind of educated populace we had in this country pre-Dewey wouldn't stand for the crap they put on TV now, they'd demand better fare. That same Bastiat was written for average civilians and farmers, just like The Federalist Papers, etc.

3. The above notwithstanding, the presumed quality of certain public services doesn't mean the government providing them is the key to their success. The argument is not that goverment *can't* provide certain functions, only that it never does it as efficiently or honestly or corruption-free as an open market, all other things being equal.

[jblosser]

I don't think you can make a profit with a physical library which is privatized.

Well, you can, with late fees and subscriptions and the like. The market has plenty of similar examples. But the notion that all market activity has to produce a monetary profit is fallacious. "Capitalism" as a characterization of the market being driven soley by money is largely a straw man created by Marx. The world has a rich tradition of the very rich creating non-profit libraries, hospitals, etc. essentially as monuments to themselves once they had too much money to care about more and began thinking instead about their own mortality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy


And even if you do, what do you do about children who can't afford to pay? I mean, I find the public library system as it is pretty good. The public library I went to in the States is better than my university library in England!

The market provides for these things, same as with private health care and education.

On the flip side, once you have a public library you have all the special interests trying to get laws on what books can be carried, what books can be banned, requiring filters on computers to protect the children, with the filter list being up to the vendors and their special interests, etc. Public libraries open the door to all kinds of restraints on speech.

[SeanEdwards]

I think there can be a role for government as the caretaker of information and artifacts. Take something like the founding documents of this country, the original artifact of the Declaration of Independence. Should these be sold off to a private bidder under some notion of privatizing everything?

A true libertarian system of governance puts a lot of faith in consumers making good decisions, but those decisions are dependent on getting good information. That's why I can see a truly legitimate role in the public/governmental sphere for collection, distribution, and preservation of knowledge and information.

We have not been well served by the for-profit media. These corporations have worked hand in glove with the entire system of the military-industrial complex and our system of government to manufacture consent for this disastrous war. I don't know if something like PBS news provides that much of an alternative, but I think there is possibly a role for society, as represented by government, playing a part in this arena. I think public libraries may be one of the very best uses of tax money out of everything that government does. Eliminating them is not high on my agenda at all.

[gtjwkq]

SeanEdwards, I can't agree that government is more suited to be a caretaker of information, especially regarding the founding documents. It's not in the interest of government to educate people on a document restricting government powers. For instance, do you think the US government has done a good job of upholding the Constitution? I don't see many americans caring about the Constitution, you can partly thank public education for that.

Don't be quick to blame "for-profit" media or the military-industrial complex without mentioning the role of government itself in "manufacturing consent" for the war. There's a huge difference between businesspeople who benefit from government and those who wouldn't be able to do so in a free market. That kind of practice would be mostly limited due to no/less government participation in the economy.

People also have a tendency to blame the free market based on the incredibly limited experience we have of it with any kind of contrived problem-scenario. It's exactly the creativity and motivation of the free market that allows us to eventually solve problems far better than any suggested alternative so far. When you think about the free market, try to think like a problem-solver.

[nexalacer]

I think the libraries question is really an example of there being a demand for something, but people took the demand to the government rather than the market. If the demand had been taken to the market, we might have had some really innovative ways of doing a library, things no one has cared to think of due to government interference. And to say that children couldn't get into the libraries because they couldn't afford it is just stupid. By that logic, we should have the government supply all food products because children can't afford them! What are parents for? Most places have child discounts, you think private libraries wouldn't as well? Also, if libraries were private, we wouldn't see nearly the number close as we do in the US each year. In Salinas, California, I think it was 2 or 3 years ago, there was talk about closing a public library because there was not enough funding. They ended up keeping it open due to private donations, but even still, it ended up being open something like 12 hours a week. You think the private library would be worse than this?

And the public television thing is ignoring the fact that what should be purchasable by anyone, television airwaves, are not for sale due to the monopoly that the government gave the major broadcasters at the dawn of the TV era. If there was no TV regulation by government, anyone could be airwaves and broadcast their own programs. If there were more competitors, I guarantee there would be more quality programming. When all the channels are owned by the same 3 or 4 companies, of course you end up with garbage on TV.

[V-rod]

Public libraries are great but it should remain a city issue.

[Destroy The Fed]

It would be in the best interest to privitize both. If libraries were privitized there would be more not less. Besides you can get millions of MDF's of books online today. Couldn't the Salvation Army or some sort of charity take over a library and provide it to the public? As for libraries geared to certain issues local universities, schools, and county colleges could pick up the slack by wydening their sections on certain books.

I personally like Public libraries but there shouldn't be a monopoly of any sort. Even now and again you find good reads in the Newark Public Library. I don't really mind on the local level, but less government is better for me.

[Colleen]

I think the problem is the Fabian-Socialist sponsorship. If you watch a program there it will usually tell who provided the grant funding either at the beginning or end of it. These are the wealthy 1% who control the wealth of nations. They do not sponsor anything which doesn't meet their litmus test of ideology. Just something to consider while viewing there. And of course not to even mention the governments own agenda, which is really the same thing.

I rarely watch PBS anymore because my own propaganda-detector has grown so sensitized to that sort of bias.

They never have any Libertarian-biased programs there and so I would rather pay for something I do find less offensive. I feel the same with public libraries. They don't carry the types of books that interest me. For similiar reasons.

[alicegardener]

While public libraries are not in the constitution, a Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, was a strong proponent.

[jj111]

Government-run libraries and television are so far down on the priority list. Let's first get rid of the federal bohemoth. Let's bring our troops out of 130 countries, save $1 trillion dollars in foreign expenditure, eliminate Dept. of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security, end the war on drugs, and the income tax, and by then we will have so much spending money we won't even be debating these things, because so many things will be better in this country.

I say, don't sweat the small stuff like government run libraries. Look at the big picture first. Ron is not even talking about govrernment run libraries, so why should we? If you want to keep government run libraries, while at the same time we cut federal spending by 80%, I say keep your libraries. I will be thrilled to see the other 80% of spending cut. And most government libraries are local anyhow so Ron Paul has no jurisdiction on most of them.