The law establishing public libraries doesn‘t just say "let there be public libraries". It designates a source for funding, making it a reason that taxpayers are less free. It forces publishers to sell/give books to the libraries.

If it could just exist without restricting someone‘s freedom in the wider sense, we wouldn‘t need a law.

Right. Privately funded libraries didn't need any laws.

It's even worse for authors. They pay taxes to support institutions that exist to lend out the author's books for free.

> Privately funded libraries didn't need any laws.

Not sure if this was meant to be a troll, but obviously private libraries depend on someone enforcing private ownership in general. Public libraries have some very specific legal carveouts (e.g. around protecting patron privacy) but otherwise are treated the same as private libraries, only publicly funded.

Lol. Libraries are huge buyers of books and drive demand.

Publishing wouldn’t exist without libraries. Something like 90% of book retail space has vaporized, and the ruthless consolidation makes the top 50 authors utterly dominate sales.

Nah, all government is bad. Socialism is when the government spends money, freedom is when I get paid $5 an hour and eat trans fats

This is one of the problems with polarization. The legitimate points of one side get grouped in with all the other ridiculous crap.

Every law, every program has a cost. Many times this costs are worth it. And there are plenty of times where they aren't, or have unintended side-effects.

Pointing out these costs and forcing society to recognize them as explicit decisions and tradeoffs is one of the key benefits of the Right, even if you disagree on where they fall on the balance of net-benefits in the final analysis.

TANSTAAFL

> Pointing out these costs and forcing society to recognize them as explicit decisions and tradeoffs is one of the key benefits of the Right

I don't think either side is better or worse at this. It's more like, point out the costs of the other side's policies while glossing over the costs of your own.

Abortion is a great example. I never hear a pro-life argument that starts out "abortion should be illegal but it will create all these unwanted babies and here's what I propose we do about that and what it will cost. We'll vote on outlawing abortion but it will be tied to tax increases to pay for programs to ensure these children have proper nutrition and education."

The idea that the right cares about babies right up until the moment you're born is common enough that George Carlin was joking about it in the 70s.

Don't forget the classic play (used on both sides) of denying there is a problem instead of stating that the cure is worse than the disease.

It’s more than that. People who extract resources tend to be reactionaries who hate taxes more than anything.

They are against schools, against libraries, against whatever, as taxes reduce their return on assets.

It’s all shorted and eventually backfires.

"freedom is when I get paid $5 an hour and eat trans fats"

Whose producer is only happy to collude with the regulatory agencies to get those trans fats declared as safe.

The "revolving door phenomenon" is a worldwide problem. Big business captures the government much of the time.

These days, they might even get their opponents' opinions classified as misinformation.

When exactly did I say that all government is bad? I personally think it's great the government restricts the right of people to commit murder.

Why?

The market would take care of it. Instead of police, just hire security.