I understand. Like I said, the ALA doesn’t really have authority to do anything to a library, and they are annoyingly consistent in being anti-censorship.
And that is despite the fact that librarianship doesn’t really attract capitalists and never has. Libraries are “Marxist” institutions. They are tax-funded service providers that do not operate at a profit.
If they didn’t already exist, I suspect little chance that most fiscal conservatives would be supporting their implementation.
Well, they existed before we called socialism “socialism”, but any that were established as a free community service was still operating under a socialist mindset, no?
If you’re talking about ancient libraries, those were generally for the rulers and aristocracy, not the public. The only people who could afford to become scholars and literate were those from the upper-class. So that’s a hard comparison to anything modern.
Well, they existed before we called socialism “socialism”, but any that were established as a free community service was still operating under a socialist mindset, no?
Yes, although it might be called a philanthropic mindset.
I think that most people here for example are not socialist (I am an ex leftie for example), but most people here would be pro-library in principle I guess.
I'm pretty sure there would be libraries available which are provided by non socialists. Roads won't disappear either.
People who are not socialist are still generally community minded, they just want choice over how they contribute.
Socialists want to force people to contribute to a system they did not agree to, it doesn't mean that non socialists won't contribute. They will.
That would actually be an interesting thing to study. I wonder what the responses would be if we asked everyone here what they would do if we took all the money away from libraries and had the option to either try again, or do something else with it.
I agree that implementing community-funded ideas doesn’t necessarily make someone a socialist under the definition that it’s used around here.
My view, for instance, is that any service which is necessary for a safe and competitive existence should be established as a publicly-funded safety net. I believe that anyone who wants private-access to a different service should have it, but that people should not fail or die as a result of access to basic services.
To some, that makes me a socialist. But that term is allowed to include Nazis and Communists and North Korea for some people around here, so valuing socialized services can be dismissed as the same Lunacy as Mao’s Great Leap Forward.
/u/propertyofUniverse is probably familiar with "socialist anti-censorship" which seeks not to show the public the truth of the Holocaust, what really happened to Russia/Khazaria, or anything the socialists want hidden. It pretends to fight censorship by pushing pornography on children.
Certainly u/propertyofUniverse wonders what knowledge the cabal has hidden away in the Vatican, the Smithsonian and other cabal institutions.
Perhaps 90% of our history and knowledge has been stolen from us by the cabal and replaced by outright lies.
I understand. Like I said, the ALA doesn’t really have authority to do anything to a library, and they are annoyingly consistent in being anti-censorship.
And that is despite the fact that librarianship doesn’t really attract capitalists and never has. Libraries are “Marxist” institutions. They are tax-funded service providers that do not operate at a profit.
If they didn’t already exist, I suspect little chance that most fiscal conservatives would be supporting their implementation.
Libraries existed before socialism.
Maybe they would be privately funded, or maybe they would have fees. I don't know.
Well, they existed before we called socialism “socialism”, but any that were established as a free community service was still operating under a socialist mindset, no?
If you’re talking about ancient libraries, those were generally for the rulers and aristocracy, not the public. The only people who could afford to become scholars and literate were those from the upper-class. So that’s a hard comparison to anything modern.
Yes, although it might be called a philanthropic mindset.
I think that most people here for example are not socialist (I am an ex leftie for example), but most people here would be pro-library in principle I guess.
I'm pretty sure there would be libraries available which are provided by non socialists. Roads won't disappear either.
People who are not socialist are still generally community minded, they just want choice over how they contribute.
Socialists want to force people to contribute to a system they did not agree to, it doesn't mean that non socialists won't contribute. They will.
That would actually be an interesting thing to study. I wonder what the responses would be if we asked everyone here what they would do if we took all the money away from libraries and had the option to either try again, or do something else with it.
I agree that implementing community-funded ideas doesn’t necessarily make someone a socialist under the definition that it’s used around here.
My view, for instance, is that any service which is necessary for a safe and competitive existence should be established as a publicly-funded safety net. I believe that anyone who wants private-access to a different service should have it, but that people should not fail or die as a result of access to basic services.
To some, that makes me a socialist. But that term is allowed to include Nazis and Communists and North Korea for some people around here, so valuing socialized services can be dismissed as the same Lunacy as Mao’s Great Leap Forward.
Good point. 👍
Certainly u/propertyofUniverse wonders what knowledge the cabal has hidden away in the Vatican, the Smithsonian and other cabal institutions.
Perhaps 90% of our history and knowledge has been stolen from us by the cabal and replaced by outright lies.
We don't even know how much we don't know.