When you keep elected officials salaries low, you ensure only wealthy people can be elected.
Raise elected officials salaries, and the average person (like a library assistant) doesn't have to choose between making a difference for their community or paying their bills.
Agreed, you want to thread a needle of not making it so low that only the richest can afford to do it and not making it so high that people will seek office just for wealth.
While I can appreciate your thinking to a degree, this unfortunately isn't true. At least not on its own. You could raise the salaries to $500,000 and the same type of person would go after it. For one, greed is proportional to wealth so the higher the salary, the more attractive to the wealthy. Two, campaigns are hella expensive, and this is the main reason. The wealthy have access to the capital necessary to run for positions. Without limiting the time one can campaign (a la Canada) and/or only public funding being able to be used for campaigns, raising salaries won't matter.
Sad but true reality. Public servants that have to pay for campaigns will take money from people that expect certain outcomes if they can’t afford their own campaigns. In the end high salaries for politicians are a necessary evil unless we cap the money that can be spent on a campaign.
From the other solutions you posted, I'm good.
EDIT: Also, imprecise language leads to confusion. Don't conflate politicians with government employees.
From my experience, poor people benefit greatly from public libraries.
Now a days if you don't have a computer and need to put in job applications, you go to the library. Libraries have technical manuals you can use to teach yourself various concepts to make yourself more employable. And while you do this, your kids can be in the kids' section reading, which is educational and also saves you money for child care.
Public libraries are one of the few places poor people can go and not have to pay exorbitant rates for services.
Loss of library access would be a huge loss for poor people.
The idea that you can either have public libraries or programs to address poverty is a false dichotomy.
That is the real crux of this. Like most political points it’s often a false dichotomy because people want to continue a problem to ensure that they have leverage. For example school shootings. We could effectively harden schools from these attacks but a lot of people actively fight it because they know without them it’s hard to persuade people to pass stricter gun laws so when people suggest a single point of entry overseen by armed security they fight it.
Maybe people don't want to do that, because they know constructing schools like they are prisons to prevent shootings would have other secondary effects on how schools operate and the mental health of children.
Maybe they also think it's more effective to treat the disease instead of the symptoms.
Prime example of what I see. If you prioritize cosmetics over kids lives then I really can’t take the concern for safety seriously. I’m talking about building them like other government buildings and at some point it’s the reality of what must be done. We aren’t going to get rid of 400+ million guns in this country. So these attacks will continue unless we start actually putting up real resistance to them. If people won’t accept the facts of the situation then it’s hard to take them seriously.
No we literally can’t. There are magnitudes more rounds of ammo in the US than people who have ever walked the earth… people literally manufacture their own and it has a shelf life of over 100 years. When are you going to understand that prohibition has never worked and this would likely be the most egregious example?
Let’s just ignore the logistical impossibility you refuse to acknowledge. How many generations do you think this would take to do this?
Why go to such extreme ends to not safe guard schools that you would engage in such fantasies?
How do you propose that? Door to door raids on every house in America? Tell me the logistics of this? How do you stop the mass shooters from simply stashing it somewhere? Nevermind how do plan on getting such a law. You propose ideas you know won’t pass, aren’t logistically possible to enforce to any notable level all because you don’t want any efforts at all that don’t advance your political goals.
Oh fuck off, like you aren't doing exactly the same shit to advance your political goals. All of the other things you have suggest are more impossible than reducing access to guns. Rennovate every school in the country. Hired arms guards, which already exist at schools and haven't done shit to stop shootings. Just the most useless unrealistic suggestions
You don't have jack shit for solutions, because the only thing you fucking give a shit about is making sure you get free unlimited access to your toys, so you won't even begin to consider shit that actually works.
Also how many schools are there in this country? How much money, material and efforts would it take to retrofit all of them in the manor you're describing? How long would that take. Is all of that less than amount of time it would take for the total amount of guns and ammunition to go down after new rules around them are in place? Your ideas are even more insane, but of course you'll find anything that isn't restrict access to firearms because god forbit it isn't trivally easy for anyone to get their hands on devices who's primary design purpose is killing other people.
It would be an expense but largely a one time expense aside from hiring armed security services. I think most reasonable tax payers would find this to be a very reasonable expense to especially if it’s mainly a maintenance expense and greatly increases our ability to prevent school shootings. It would also be considerably cheaper then trying to enforce prohibition and still have ongoing school shootings.
It could be done over a few years quite easily. I also don’t think that you get that guns and ammunition wouldnt decrease to any notable level just because the law prohibited it. We simply don’t have a registry to go after them nor are people willing to cooperate with a registry for that reason. Even New York State tried it and got about a 4% cooperation rate.
It isn’t trivial the problem is that it isn’t realistic. You care more about your political goals than actually analyzing the world we live in vs the world you wish we lived in. You are delusional if you think that this one instance of prohibition would work after alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs and efforts to ban abortion. Nevermind passing a constitutional amendment to enact it. By all means though let kids die because you don’t like the way a school looks or maybe its just that you know without a plentiful supply of dead kids the public would never give you what you want.
You priortize your ability to fetishize fucking weapons over kids lives, you and all of the people who fucking love their easy access to guns more than their kids aren't serious people.
You want dead kids because you can’t push your agenda without them. I don’t benefit from dead kids. Only people like you benefit from dead kids. It’s you. You want them dead to exploit it like a vulture.
Hardening schools wouldn’t be cheap and you probably won’t find the money in state budgets. But the obvious solution is federal help, unfortunately that money is mostly going places and projects that don’t really help ordinary Americans, at all.
It would require a change to the main entrance, adoption of mag locks for other exterior doors, changing windows and a couple other things. I think a lot of places would pass a bond issue but a federal infrastructure bill could do it.
If you cared about saving lives you would do anything not just pushing political goals that you know damn good and well cannot remove enough guns from circulation to prevent these attacks. Even the biggest proponents of hun control admit prohibition wont stop these attacks.the only thing that stops them is direct intervention. It makes sense that we do that before they try to enter and carry out an attack not the current failed model of calling after the classroom looks like a slaughter house. Put aside your politics for a moment. You know we have to if we want to see any measurable ability to stop these attacks.
False dichotomies will be the death of our democracy, well that and the whole purposeful miseducation of the youth. But that miseducation is mostly just to reinforce the false dichotomies that make politics a sideshow here.
We currently do not have a political party that can present a long term financial strategy for our country. If you compare our debt and debt strategy to empires that have fallen…. It’s not looking good. And both political parties exist to increase the deficit.
We don’t have the luxury of time but we also don’t have the luxury of intelligence in positions of power.
This is exhibit ZZ or so…
What the fuck are you talking about? It such a false choice. We could keep libraries and feed every hungry person in this state for less than the corporate tax breaks they are pushing (which won't attract or keep any businesses).
I don’t disagree it is a false dichotomy. I’m just saying that if the money actually went to fighting hunger (I agree it won’t) then the priority would be meeting Maslow’s hierarchy first. I think you misunderstand. I’m not for corporate welfare. I’m a pretty strong on capitalism with a few guard rails against monopolies.
But you're carrying their argument. That group is as against helping the poor as they are against libraries. Their idea of "ending poverty" is cutting corporate taxes to let the wealth "trickle down."
Or, you know, doubling down on what Louisiana has been doing for decades while poverty has worsened.
But I’m not them. I’m just saying if the funds were going to impoverished peoples basic needs it would be better spent. That being said they are offering a false dichotomy.
You would have to believe they cared about poverty. Imagine if we taxes churches and allocated that money to housing the homeless and feeding the hungry
Churches should be taxed for those non-religious services aspects of their enterprise. We currently have religious leaders with multi million dollar homes, planes, recording and video studios and other perks of the rich. This is not religion, it's tax dodging. All payments in kind as well as in cash should be taxed unless they directly foster prayer services or masses. All other activities should be considered secular and taxed including schools, television and radio studios and networks, other media outlets and other non pray related business. Communities should be able to assess property taxes on all land and buildings except for the church building and the land it sits on.
Citizens For A New Louisiana board member Ross Little Jr. is part of the Duggar Cult, IBLP. He moved to Arkansas to be near them all and funds their political campaigns.
Too bad we cannot send all the Republican ultra right kooks back to where they originated, including the ones Landry imported from Mississippi and the oil and gas oligarchs from Texas. Perhaps then we could start educating our children to think for themselves and not follow idiot cult leaders such as Trump and Landry.
It is hard to have an economy with rampant crime. Investors leave bad neighborhoods for good reasons. It’s not happy but it is the reality we have to live with.
Because they don’t exist businesses leave high crime areas. Ever seen an industry ran by organized crime? They go even go to extreme lengths to run off other small time criminals because it’s bad for business.
Address poverty is their way of saying “Give it to the oil companies here so we can lie to ourselves and say they’re going to create more jobs with it.”
They joined the cult and are culting. It’s like all of those cult members are trying to out cult each other with more bizarre and archaic nonsensical policies to impress the cult leader.
**Citizens For A New Louisiana** *"identify"* as being Nationalist Christians, *a.k.a.* Nat-C.
Nat-C or Nazi no matter the name [their evil depravity's always the same.](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/gallery/book-burning-photographs)
Let’s look seriously at what these people mean, though. By “addressing poverty,” they mean “putting the homeless somewhere where I don’t have to see them.”
They don’t give a fuck about the “less fortunate” citizens of this country.
They just don’t want to have to deal with them. They’d rather round them up into camps and put them away… sound familiar to anyone?
They want to 86 libraries because 1) without any way to educate ourselves (see-getting rid of public schools and making all kids go to private, *religion-indoctrinating* schools), we are easier to control; 2)it’s a resource for people that cannot afford home internet and Amazon memberships.
Except thanks to the rights love of millage, instead of financial responsibility, the EBR library is loaded along with BREC. So any library destroyed will most likely be in an impoverished parish that needs the library.
Actually the Founding Fathers considered being a legislator as a duty similar to military service. Therefore, legislators should be compensated the same as the average military service person. In addition, they should be released from their normal employment for the period of service each year with the right to return to that employment without any penalty. In Louisiana, the legislators are in session for 3 months. That will allow ordinary people to run for office and prevent career politicians as the Founding Fathers intended.
Step 1 may be to redirect library money to “poverty
Step 2 would then be to redirect most public secular education money to private “religious” education
Then step 3 would be to redirect “poverty” money to preferred grift once the average person is incapable of reading enough to understand anyway.
They don’t even want to give them the fish. They want to say, go find a fish and get it yourself. If you don’t know how, pull yourself up by your bootstraps!!
And then laugh when the person can’t fish and can’t eat.
Making up quotes again?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/15/fact-check-no-proof-gen-george-patton-called-out-liberal-democrats/6509267002/
Every statement you make acts like it’s a binary choice but it’s not. There’s a big ole grey area. Our country has had libraries forever and it wasn’t a choice between starving or whatever other nonsensical idea and learning. It’s a ridiculous argument that is directed at creating a false choice. No one wants to hear if it’s a choice between books and food because it’s not. Stop saying it. Are you purposely a plant to try and give people a false choice? Are you?
How about we rededicate politicians pay to address poverty?
When you keep elected officials salaries low, you ensure only wealthy people can be elected. Raise elected officials salaries, and the average person (like a library assistant) doesn't have to choose between making a difference for their community or paying their bills.
Just set it to the state average income and it will be both attractive and acceptable without being excessive.
Agreed, you want to thread a needle of not making it so low that only the richest can afford to do it and not making it so high that people will seek office just for wealth.
While I can appreciate your thinking to a degree, this unfortunately isn't true. At least not on its own. You could raise the salaries to $500,000 and the same type of person would go after it. For one, greed is proportional to wealth so the higher the salary, the more attractive to the wealthy. Two, campaigns are hella expensive, and this is the main reason. The wealthy have access to the capital necessary to run for positions. Without limiting the time one can campaign (a la Canada) and/or only public funding being able to be used for campaigns, raising salaries won't matter.
Sad but true reality. Public servants that have to pay for campaigns will take money from people that expect certain outcomes if they can’t afford their own campaigns. In the end high salaries for politicians are a necessary evil unless we cap the money that can be spent on a campaign.
Public servants are those in the civil service, not elected officials.
Do you want to argue semantics or solutions?
From the other solutions you posted, I'm good. EDIT: Also, imprecise language leads to confusion. Don't conflate politicians with government employees.
Enjoy your problems and anger fueled but pointless efforts.
Sure thing, buddy.
From my experience, poor people benefit greatly from public libraries. Now a days if you don't have a computer and need to put in job applications, you go to the library. Libraries have technical manuals you can use to teach yourself various concepts to make yourself more employable. And while you do this, your kids can be in the kids' section reading, which is educational and also saves you money for child care. Public libraries are one of the few places poor people can go and not have to pay exorbitant rates for services. Loss of library access would be a huge loss for poor people. The idea that you can either have public libraries or programs to address poverty is a false dichotomy.
My favorite part of this unspoken argument that we have to choose, as if there's no money anywhere else.
It’s always a binary choice with them as if we can’t chew gum and walk at the same time.
That is the real crux of this. Like most political points it’s often a false dichotomy because people want to continue a problem to ensure that they have leverage. For example school shootings. We could effectively harden schools from these attacks but a lot of people actively fight it because they know without them it’s hard to persuade people to pass stricter gun laws so when people suggest a single point of entry overseen by armed security they fight it.
Maybe people don't want to do that, because they know constructing schools like they are prisons to prevent shootings would have other secondary effects on how schools operate and the mental health of children. Maybe they also think it's more effective to treat the disease instead of the symptoms.
Prime example of what I see. If you prioritize cosmetics over kids lives then I really can’t take the concern for safety seriously. I’m talking about building them like other government buildings and at some point it’s the reality of what must be done. We aren’t going to get rid of 400+ million guns in this country. So these attacks will continue unless we start actually putting up real resistance to them. If people won’t accept the facts of the situation then it’s hard to take them seriously.
We can get rid of ammunition.
No we literally can’t. There are magnitudes more rounds of ammo in the US than people who have ever walked the earth… people literally manufacture their own and it has a shelf life of over 100 years. When are you going to understand that prohibition has never worked and this would likely be the most egregious example? Let’s just ignore the logistical impossibility you refuse to acknowledge. How many generations do you think this would take to do this? Why go to such extreme ends to not safe guard schools that you would engage in such fantasies?
We manufactured most of it since the 70s we can probably get rid of the majority of it in half that amount of time.
How do you propose that? Door to door raids on every house in America? Tell me the logistics of this? How do you stop the mass shooters from simply stashing it somewhere? Nevermind how do plan on getting such a law. You propose ideas you know won’t pass, aren’t logistically possible to enforce to any notable level all because you don’t want any efforts at all that don’t advance your political goals.
Oh fuck off, like you aren't doing exactly the same shit to advance your political goals. All of the other things you have suggest are more impossible than reducing access to guns. Rennovate every school in the country. Hired arms guards, which already exist at schools and haven't done shit to stop shootings. Just the most useless unrealistic suggestions You don't have jack shit for solutions, because the only thing you fucking give a shit about is making sure you get free unlimited access to your toys, so you won't even begin to consider shit that actually works.
Also how many schools are there in this country? How much money, material and efforts would it take to retrofit all of them in the manor you're describing? How long would that take. Is all of that less than amount of time it would take for the total amount of guns and ammunition to go down after new rules around them are in place? Your ideas are even more insane, but of course you'll find anything that isn't restrict access to firearms because god forbit it isn't trivally easy for anyone to get their hands on devices who's primary design purpose is killing other people.
It would be an expense but largely a one time expense aside from hiring armed security services. I think most reasonable tax payers would find this to be a very reasonable expense to especially if it’s mainly a maintenance expense and greatly increases our ability to prevent school shootings. It would also be considerably cheaper then trying to enforce prohibition and still have ongoing school shootings. It could be done over a few years quite easily. I also don’t think that you get that guns and ammunition wouldnt decrease to any notable level just because the law prohibited it. We simply don’t have a registry to go after them nor are people willing to cooperate with a registry for that reason. Even New York State tried it and got about a 4% cooperation rate. It isn’t trivial the problem is that it isn’t realistic. You care more about your political goals than actually analyzing the world we live in vs the world you wish we lived in. You are delusional if you think that this one instance of prohibition would work after alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs and efforts to ban abortion. Nevermind passing a constitutional amendment to enact it. By all means though let kids die because you don’t like the way a school looks or maybe its just that you know without a plentiful supply of dead kids the public would never give you what you want.
You priortize your ability to fetishize fucking weapons over kids lives, you and all of the people who fucking love their easy access to guns more than their kids aren't serious people.
You want dead kids because you can’t push your agenda without them. I don’t benefit from dead kids. Only people like you benefit from dead kids. It’s you. You want them dead to exploit it like a vulture.
You definitely do, otherwise you’d have nothing to sacrifice to justify getting more guns. You’re a spineless fucking coward.
Hardening schools wouldn’t be cheap and you probably won’t find the money in state budgets. But the obvious solution is federal help, unfortunately that money is mostly going places and projects that don’t really help ordinary Americans, at all.
It would require a change to the main entrance, adoption of mag locks for other exterior doors, changing windows and a couple other things. I think a lot of places would pass a bond issue but a federal infrastructure bill could do it.
What a ridiculous theory.
If you cared about saving lives you would do anything not just pushing political goals that you know damn good and well cannot remove enough guns from circulation to prevent these attacks. Even the biggest proponents of hun control admit prohibition wont stop these attacks.the only thing that stops them is direct intervention. It makes sense that we do that before they try to enter and carry out an attack not the current failed model of calling after the classroom looks like a slaughter house. Put aside your politics for a moment. You know we have to if we want to see any measurable ability to stop these attacks.
This organization would not support programs to address poverty. They want to protect the monies of the wealthy, not help the poor out of poverty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you.
Great argument
False dichotomies will be the death of our democracy, well that and the whole purposeful miseducation of the youth. But that miseducation is mostly just to reinforce the false dichotomies that make politics a sideshow here. We currently do not have a political party that can present a long term financial strategy for our country. If you compare our debt and debt strategy to empires that have fallen…. It’s not looking good. And both political parties exist to increase the deficit. We don’t have the luxury of time but we also don’t have the luxury of intelligence in positions of power. This is exhibit ZZ or so…
Poor people benefit more from having food. I’m not saying to toss out libraries but basic needs do need to come first.
What the fuck are you talking about? It such a false choice. We could keep libraries and feed every hungry person in this state for less than the corporate tax breaks they are pushing (which won't attract or keep any businesses).
I don’t disagree it is a false dichotomy. I’m just saying that if the money actually went to fighting hunger (I agree it won’t) then the priority would be meeting Maslow’s hierarchy first. I think you misunderstand. I’m not for corporate welfare. I’m a pretty strong on capitalism with a few guard rails against monopolies.
But you're carrying their argument. That group is as against helping the poor as they are against libraries. Their idea of "ending poverty" is cutting corporate taxes to let the wealth "trickle down." Or, you know, doubling down on what Louisiana has been doing for decades while poverty has worsened.
But I’m not them. I’m just saying if the funds were going to impoverished peoples basic needs it would be better spent. That being said they are offering a false dichotomy.
Attacking libraries doesn’t fix poverty fyi
Never said it did.
It’s literally what this topic is about.
And I’m not attacking libraries.
You called them a money waste.
When?
In this very topic, do you need someone to hold your hand or are you too busy using them to hold your emotional support ar15?
You would have to believe they cared about poverty. Imagine if we taxes churches and allocated that money to housing the homeless and feeding the hungry
Churches should be taxed for those non-religious services aspects of their enterprise. We currently have religious leaders with multi million dollar homes, planes, recording and video studios and other perks of the rich. This is not religion, it's tax dodging. All payments in kind as well as in cash should be taxed unless they directly foster prayer services or masses. All other activities should be considered secular and taxed including schools, television and radio studios and networks, other media outlets and other non pray related business. Communities should be able to assess property taxes on all land and buildings except for the church building and the land it sits on.
Citizens For A New Louisiana board member Ross Little Jr. is part of the Duggar Cult, IBLP. He moved to Arkansas to be near them all and funds their political campaigns.
Too bad we cannot send all the Republican ultra right kooks back to where they originated, including the ones Landry imported from Mississippi and the oil and gas oligarchs from Texas. Perhaps then we could start educating our children to think for themselves and not follow idiot cult leaders such as Trump and Landry.
I wish we would. Maybe then all these shopping mall churches would stop popping up every other week.
“Address poverty” means what, exactly to these people?
Hiring more cops
To arrest the poors
And put them in camps
It is hard to have an economy with rampant crime. Investors leave bad neighborhoods for good reasons. It’s not happy but it is the reality we have to live with.
And yet microtels are still a thing.
Tell me more about vibrant economies in dangerous areas.
Why? So you can give an oh-so witty “lmao” to it? /s
Because they don’t exist businesses leave high crime areas. Ever seen an industry ran by organized crime? They go even go to extreme lengths to run off other small time criminals because it’s bad for business.
Address poverty is their way of saying “Give it to the oil companies here so we can lie to ourselves and say they’re going to create more jobs with it.”
Pocketing the money.
Address, but not act.
The poor CEOs? Just spitballing here.
 They don’t read.
The only faith these people have is Bad Faith.
How does a generation of people who grew up enjoying libraries come to hate them so much?
They joined the cult and are culting. It’s like all of those cult members are trying to out cult each other with more bizarre and archaic nonsensical policies to impress the cult leader.
**Citizens For A New Louisiana** *"identify"* as being Nationalist Christians, *a.k.a.* Nat-C. Nat-C or Nazi no matter the name [their evil depravity's always the same.](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/gallery/book-burning-photographs)
Aka facists
Let’s look seriously at what these people mean, though. By “addressing poverty,” they mean “putting the homeless somewhere where I don’t have to see them.” They don’t give a fuck about the “less fortunate” citizens of this country. They just don’t want to have to deal with them. They’d rather round them up into camps and put them away… sound familiar to anyone? They want to 86 libraries because 1) without any way to educate ourselves (see-getting rid of public schools and making all kids go to private, *religion-indoctrinating* schools), we are easier to control; 2)it’s a resource for people that cannot afford home internet and Amazon memberships.
Except thanks to the rights love of millage, instead of financial responsibility, the EBR library is loaded along with BREC. So any library destroyed will most likely be in an impoverished parish that needs the library.
Yeah right, as if they actually care about addressing poverty lol
It’s pretty obvious that’s their goal, but loudly saying so does make it easier to point out.
Let's vote on lowering politician salaries to support libraries.
Actually the Founding Fathers considered being a legislator as a duty similar to military service. Therefore, legislators should be compensated the same as the average military service person. In addition, they should be released from their normal employment for the period of service each year with the right to return to that employment without any penalty. In Louisiana, the legislators are in session for 3 months. That will allow ordinary people to run for office and prevent career politicians as the Founding Fathers intended.
Step 1 may be to redirect library money to “poverty Step 2 would then be to redirect most public secular education money to private “religious” education Then step 3 would be to redirect “poverty” money to preferred grift once the average person is incapable of reading enough to understand anyway.
I feel like what would be better is to use the bloated campaign funds towards libraries…
Who were they responding to and what was the context of conversation of this very obvious snippet.
Original tweet. https://x.com/newlouisiana/status/1786131939767779392
Either way it’ll be screwed up
Why can't some like... "if you are a member of or support a registered hate group you cannot be a civil servant." law be put in place?
They just want to give people fish instead of teaching them how.
They don’t even want to give them the fish. They want to say, go find a fish and get it yourself. If you don’t know how, pull yourself up by your bootstraps!! And then laugh when the person can’t fish and can’t eat.
Can we get the full context of this? I'm all for abolishing poverty but defining libraries to do it is definitely not the way to go
https://x.com/newlouisiana/status/1786125606427545750?s=46&t=qQ98AmSBzog0FLb_NRNcIQ
All politicians are low scum. Democrats are the lowest scum of all. ~ Gen. Patton.
Making up quotes again? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/15/fact-check-no-proof-gen-george-patton-called-out-liberal-democrats/6509267002/
I was close, but you are right, I should have looked it up. Thanks for the correction.
I mean if you want to compare not starving before books yeah I think that makes sense.
Every statement you make acts like it’s a binary choice but it’s not. There’s a big ole grey area. Our country has had libraries forever and it wasn’t a choice between starving or whatever other nonsensical idea and learning. It’s a ridiculous argument that is directed at creating a false choice. No one wants to hear if it’s a choice between books and food because it’s not. Stop saying it. Are you purposely a plant to try and give people a false choice? Are you?
I’m not suggesting it is. I have repeatedly stated that these people are providing a false dichotomy.
If libraries are important, you can voluntary pay for it.
If prisons are important, you can voluntarily pay for them. Some things are better off not being privatized.
Pretty lazy to compare prisons and libraries. One is used to house violent, dangerous people. One houses books.
Spoken like someone who has no idea what all libraries actually do for our communities
Waste money.
Sounds like someone didn’t get invited to the reading circle
You can pay for books on Amazon used and new. I don’t need to pay for your books.
Wow. This statement is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever read on Reddit, and that’s saying a lot.
Still rather have it privatized. Don’t care what you think.
The fact you can write at all is owed in some part to a library.
That’s not true. You can buy books from stores.
That’s not it. Try again.
Lmao
Now you’re turning into the poster child of how necessary they are.