goonlord ([info]goonlord) wrote,
@ 2008-11-06 03:27:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Why I do not consider myself libertarian
#2 Why the hell do you think ONLY the government can run libraries, schools, parks, or Railroads? Railroads are private! Libraries don't need to exist in a world with Barnes &Noble, amazon, and Netflix.

(7 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]heebee
2008-11-06 02:31 pm UTC (link)
. . .

(Reply to this)


[info]mayamaia
2008-11-06 06:14 pm UTC (link)
RARRRRRRR!

(Reply to this)


[info]animate_mush
2008-11-06 07:28 pm UTC (link)
The author seems to be under the faulty assumption that libraries fulfill the same (and therefore redundant) role in the public sector that bookstores do in the public sector. The fact that Netflix and Amazon coexist is itself evidence that this assumption is wrong. Netflix is actually quite a good example of a private library-analog, but restricted to video media and in an online format.

But a private library-analog that carries books and is based in a physical building (two desiderata of a public library) is not the same as a bookstore. Should such a thing be allowed to exist? Absolutely.

His argument seems to be that anything the government can do the private sector can do better. This is an empirical question. Unfortunately, he's an idiot.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gwenlle
2008-11-07 01:37 am UTC (link)
There is no way in which you were even remotely offended enough, regardless of the faulty assumptions of the author.

I'm sorry, but I just had to call you on it. Calling the person in question an idiot did make me kind of happy-- but did you notice that whereas you started out with the gender-neutral "the author", in your final paragraph, you switched to "he". Ouch, what's with that?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mayamaia
2008-11-07 02:06 am UTC (link)
...I should so turn that into a paper for my Women's Studies class. Except it would be entirely disturbing and WRONG.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]animate_mush
2008-11-07 02:21 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I just can't take it seriously enough to be offended by it.

I actually assumed (perhaps incorrectly) a male authorial voice from the beginning. I just got sick of definite descriptions and switched back to pronouns. I think there are (at least) two reasons for this assumption:

1) Most libertarians I know of are male. The only exception I can think of is Ayn Rand, and she very obviously didn't write this.
2) I have a silent reading voice which is a perceived authorial voice. Because this is in the journal of a male person, I had perhaps already defaulted to a male silent reading voice. I'll have to pay attention to what I do with contextless quotes in the journals of female persons to test this.

But I don't actually think that male people are more idiotic than female or gender neutral people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]gwenlle
2008-11-07 01:37 am UTC (link)
See? *THIS* is why I need ninjas!

(Reply to this)

(7 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…