You can buy liquor in Toronto on a Sunday, but you can't use the neighbourhood public library. Why? by George Dance
(libertarian)
Saturday, August 1, 2009
When I'm at the local mall with friends on a Sunday, I like to point out an irony that says much about how Ontario's values have changed in my lifetime. The library is closed and padlocked -- right beside it, the liquor store is open and doing a roaring business.
Recently, I found that it's not just Sundays anymore. With some time before an appointment I decided to visit the library; and found that it is now closed on Thursday mornings, too.
The LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the provincial government-owned liquor store) was open, though, bright and early to serve the public. I was tempted to buy a bottle, sneak out back, and drink it illegally; but I ended up spending my time thinking about the discrepancy instead.
Why the different service levels? Is the government trying to encourage drinking and discourage reading? No, just the opposite. Which is precisely the problem: First, the government is trying to promote reading, and discourage drinking; second, as it's the government doing it, the consequences are precisely the opposite of those intended.
Because the city wants to encourage reading, it offers libraries as a free service. As libraries do not generate revenue, they cannot make a profit. Therefore they have no funds of their own, other than what they can beg from politicians and bureaucrats; barely enough for present services (never mind new ones!), and all at the mercy of every round of budget cutting.
Because the province wants to discourage drinking, it has legally imposed a monopoly (the LCBO) to charge drinkers high monopoly prices (and levies stiff taxes on top of those). The result is that the LCBO is swimming in profit. It has plenty of funds to expand, extend hours, offer new products, and advertise: all of which encourage LCBO patronage and liquor consumption.
Why can't libraries make a profit? Why can't they charge for their services? Just what would be wrong with paying, say, a dollar a week to rent a book? The publisher and author would like that, if they were paid royalties (which they should be).
What about other services, like Internet time? Libraries pay a hefty monthly fee for that; where is the sense in giving it away?
Libraries ration Internet time, while Internet cafes welcome patrons and encourage them to stay all day, because they make a profit from their customers' computer use fees.
Internet cafes add to their profits by selling their customers coffee and other refreshments. Similarly, major bookstores increase both customers and profits by offering reading rooms and selling coffee. With the same sort of clientele, libraries could easily do the same. Simply leasing a bit of space to a coffee chain would boost both service and revenue at little cost.
There are other ways libraries could benefit from little privatizations like that. They could scrap their fleet of aging copiers and lease that space to a private company. Private enterprise can provide a photocopy for under 10 cents; why does a library copy cost double?
Processing payments should present no problem. Toronto libraries, for one, have redesigned library cards along the lines of phone and gift cards. Customers preload dollar amounts onto their library cards, and the card is debited for each copier use. That payment method could be used for all services.
But, some will always object, what about the poor? How will they get to read? Such objections sometimes get tiresome, but one always has to answer them. The best answer here would be to issue library cards with a dollar amount already loaded. That compromise would retain free library services, but only up to a certain level; those who used more services would pay.
Some will also object that commercializing libraries would subject them to the 'whims of the marketplace'; that only government subsidies can give them secure and steady funding. But, as we've seen, the reality is exactly the opposite. Liquor stores thrive and expand, because they make a profit. Libraries stagnate and cut back, because they depend on government subsidy.
If the two were people, one could say: Liquor stores have a well-paying job, while libraries are stuck on welfare. For their good as well as ours, it's time that libraries began looking for a job.
---
Originally published as:
"Reflections on Books and Booze," Libertarian Bulletin 27:4 (Summer 2007), 2. Ontario Libertarian Party.http://www.libertarian.on.ca/
-
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of George Dance only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
George Dance is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-08-03 20:10:21
Hi George,
I think it is a mistake to attempt to run libraries as a profit center. I think it is unsustainable for them to be run as a free government service. Government funds flow towards need. The need for some things, like health care and man hole covers is unbounded. The need for a library is hard to measure so the usage data is used to determine need.
The best source of library funding is philanthropy but the government service model squelches philanthropy and eventually eliminates it or makes it unnecessarily burdensome to perform. The collapse of government could be the best thing ever for libraries.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
