From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: Re: California libraries/dire need
Keywords: Franklin etc.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 23:53:43 GMT

In article <11473@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.212249.20403@leland.Stanford.EDU>, miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
># When I wrote, "Ben Franklin was full of it when he started this 
># public library thing." , I was being a little sarcastic.  Clayton
># is right about Franklin's subscription library.  It was called
># the Library Company of Philadelphia.  It still exists to this day.
># These privately funded circulation libraries flourished from
># pre-revolutionary times until the early 19th century.  "The
># depressions of 1819, 1837, and 1857 all resulted in withdrawal of
># support for voluntary libraries.  A library which cannot keep up
># with its collections quickly ceases to be of much value.  Of the 
># thousands of community libraries which had sprung up by 1875, only
># 188 were fully tax supported." (FOR THE PEOPLE ISBN 0-385-14359-1)
># Anyway, it was one of the 1% who really got the public library 
># movement off the ground.  His name was Andrew Carnegie.  By the time
># he died in 1919, he had provided the seed money for 2,500 public
># libraries.
># My point in bringing up the fact that 1% of the U.S. population has
># more wealth (stocks, bonds, property, cash etc.) than 90% of the 
># population was to show precisely who has the wherewithal to fund socially
># necessary operations, like public libraries.  I do not want to tax
># Cramer or the people in the 90% catagory; they're the people producing
># the wealth of the United States.  The fact that they collectively own
>
>Notice that Carnegie did it voluntarily -- without being taxed.
>There were no income taxes in those days.  Does this suggest something
>to you?
>
># less than the top one percent shows that they are not getting the
># wealth they're creating back.
>
>Probably.  But short of redistribution of wealth (which for some
>odd reason, mostly redistributes wealth UPWARD), there's no way
>to change that, except by becoming wealthy enough myself to engage
>in capitalism.
>
># As for volutarily funding police, prisons, fire etc within a modern
># capitalist system--good luck.  As much as I dislike the state, I
># don't think you can run a system based on private property without
># one.
>
>To the extent that these agencies can't raise money voluntarily,
>and are reduced in effectiveness, they will tend to reduce the
>amount of wealth that accumulates.  Do you think that a millionaire
>would be secure without the large governmental security system
>(that we all pay for) protecting his wealth?  He could hire his
>own security guards -- but who watches his guards?  This can get
>rapidly out of control, such that it may not make sense to be
>VERY rich without the government's assistance.
>
>
>
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
>with whom I work.