271 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

This account has been closed by the user

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

This account has been closed by the user

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

If they have a book open in front of them and aren't sleeping they aren't doing anything that can be construed as illegal. However, if the library wanted them out, they'd simply have to call the police and have them warned for trespass. Coming back day after day without actually using the services can be seen as loitering behavior.

A library isn't "public property" only a public place. It is private property, owned by the city, and you can be warned for trespass there, as mentioned, just like in a park if you're causing problems.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"Why on Earth would a for profit rental business give you seating? Where's the money in it? Does Blockbuster give you seats and TVs to sit in the store and watch movies?"

Why would a coffee shop? Why would Barnes & Noble? I find it hilarious when you people hold with these Marxist notions of how markets function which flatly contradict reality. I applaud you for your patriotic doublethink.

"No, the[sic] almost certainly wouldn't."

Dude, my point was there's a line of like people waiting to get the book, so YES, OBVIOUSLY they would have many copies, since any time someone decided it wasn't worth the time to wait in line, they would lose the sale.

And if they didn't have the books I wanted? If I didn't think the service provided was worth the cost? I WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. Wow, novel concept huh?

The closer the private library got to matching consumer demand for books, the more profit they would make. That's their incentive and the reason free markets kick so much ass.

The state employees get paid the same no matter how horribly they waste resources. That's why there's only 2 copies of popular programming books, and many obscure or obsolete books that nobody checks out.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"Why would a coffee shop? Why would Barnes & Noble? I find it hilarious when you people hold with these Marxist notions of how markets function which flatly contradict reality. I applaud you for your patriotic doublethink."

I find it hilarious that you think there's no middle ground between privatizing everything and Marxism. As I've repeatedly told you idiots when you play that card - and feel free to stalk through my comment history to find that many many times I've talked about this - I run a profitable business. Not a "Marxist" by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're the sort of Teabagging moran who thinks that anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is "Marxist."

As I've also mentioned on a number of occasions on book related topics (and reference in my choice of user name), I'm in the book business. Though I've moved on to other things, at an earlier stage in my career I spent 8 years managing several different--wait for it--Barnes and Noble stores. So, how fortitous that you would bring them up.

Why do coffee shops and B&N stores give you chairs to sit in? Ever wondered why there are no clocks in retail stores? Same answer - the longer you stay the more you spend. The coffee shop is self-explanitory. B&N is banking on, among other things, the fact that if you sit down and start reading a book you'll get hooked enough to want to take it home with you and will therefore end up buying it.

Neither of these are the best analogies for a *rental* business, which is why I chose Blockbuster. A traditional (as in, for-sale) bookstore has a good number of *copies* of popular books because (a) they make their profit on each and every sale and (b) once they sell it, it's never coming back. A rental business, on the other hand, faces the problem of (a) having to set the price low enough for renting to be more attractive than buying and (b) the fact that the copies do keep coming back. They need to rent *each individual copy* to multiple people in order to make any money.

Unless this hypothetical business has hired an complete idiot as a buyer, there won't be surplus copies lying around for you look at in the "store." You'll most likely just be looking at pictures of dust jackets or something (like the empty DVD cases at Blockbusters), and their ideal inventory level will be such that they strive to have every book rented out at all times.

This means that - (a) no incentive to provide you chairs to sit around in. What they will do is maximize their revenue per square foot, meaning they'll pack in the "books" (jackets) for you to look at in the smallest space possible and pack any spare space they can with sideline items for sale to pick up some extra money. They won't want your ass sitting around loitering in a space that could otherwise be used to drive additional sales. Also (b) yup, you guessed it, waiting lists for books. A sucessful book "rental" model might include something like Blockbuster's "guaranteed to be in stock" for the very biggest of the big new releases. Basically, the NYT bestseller list. When's the last time you saw a programming book make that list? Why do you think your local B&N only has one or at most two copies of any programming book? It because they are *not* where the money is.

""No, the[sic] almost certainly wouldn't."
Dude . . . ."

If your argument is so feeble that you're going to pretend to mistake a very common typo for a meaningful spelling error that give you leave to insult the intelligence of the original writer, I'd suggest in future not starting your next sentence with the word, "Dude." Having one's intelligence questioned by a thirteen-year-old stoner doesn't really pack that much punch . . . .

"Dude, my point was there's a line of like people waiting to get the book, so YES, OBVIOUSLY they would have many copies, since any time someone decided it wasn't worth the time to wait in line, they would lose the sale."

I think you underestimate the amount of demand it would take to justify the purchase of even one additional copy. If worrying over every single lost sale was enough, why isn't B&N packed with piles of multiple copies of every obscure programming book out there? The ideal goal is perfect sell-through. As in - sales of 100% of the order with no left overs (overbuying) and no unfilled demand (underbuying). But a good buyer will err on the side of caution and chose one or two unfilled customer rather than getting stuck with "dead" inventory that wasted money that could've been used to buy a different title.

Rental, that will be even more true. Say the rental price is around 10% of the cover price. They're not even going to consider an additional copy unless the wait list *at that specific 'store'* exceeds about 15, maybe 20. They're not going to buy one copy to satisfy one or two people that were waiting if that means a loss of 80 or 90% of the cost. Expect that level of demand to happen with a lot of programming books, do you? (Serious question - I half think your problem is you *seriously* overestimate the demand and popularity for programming books. My couple of decades in the book business is here to tell you - they are *not* hot titles.)

" . . . the more profit they would make . . . " " . . . .waste resources . . . "

Same thing, different name. If resources that could've gone to provide more titles in more areas is diverted to someone's pockets, that's waste.

"matching consumer demand for books,"

Which is exactly *why* what I told you in my first post is correct - you'd be looking at lots and lots of popular bestsellers like Danielle Steele and at most one or two copies of everything else, with wait lists for those who want them. No different from what a B&N store already does. If only there were someplace that made its buying decisions (let's call it "collection development"), on the basis of other factors besides just popularity or sales (or "circulation numbers"). Some place that considered the subject matter of a book, and how important providing customers ("patrons") with access to that particular topic/title was in the overall scheme of their inventory ("collection"). Someplace that didn't just stock pile s**tty bestsellers, but also "wasted resources" stocking low demand things like, oh, I don't know, how about computer programming? Oh, right, that'd be a library.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Ah, good old argumentum verbosium. I read the entire post though because you do seem to have some experience with this and I found it informative. That said, I have some objections:

Ad Hominem attacks:
That I'm a "Teabagging moran[sic]". No, I'm not; I am an Anarchist. I can't imagine any Anarchist begin caught dead at a tea bagging rally. They're mainly republicans and I doubt any of them would have the consistency to criticize libraries. (They don't even advocate open borders)

Seating:
The incentive of a book rental store to provide seating is NO DIFFERENT from one that sells books. Someone could sit at B&N and read through an entire book just as easily as they could at a rental store. The reason they would buy or check out a book is that they don't want to stay in the store for that long.

Ideal inventory levels:
" their ideal inventory level will be such that they strive to have every book rented out at all times."
That way, when any customer comes into the store, they won't have any books to rent! Clearly you are a shrewd businessman.

Availability of non-NYT best sellers:
"Why do you think your local B&N only has one or at most two copies of any programming book? It because they are *not* where the money is."
I didn't say they were flying off the shelves, just that there is demand for them. If I go to a public library and see 8 holds on 4 copies of a book that was published 10 years ago, it's reasonable to assume that a book rental store would have to be pants on head retarded not to stock more copies than that.

Coercive versus voluntary transactions:
You missed one point which actually invalidates your entire post. Actually, considering that you responded exhaustively to every other paragraph I'm inclined to believe you skipped it deliberately.

"And if they didn't have the books I wanted? If I didn't think the service provided was worth the cost? I WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. Wow, novel concept huh?"

Your other points about the feasibility of a book lending service are well taken. Maybe libraries wouldn't even exist without the state. What would that prove? Only that they were a waste of resources in that consumers valued other uses of those resources more highly than a book lending service.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that if public libraries didn't exist, something else would move in to fill in the gap in demand left over, whatever that may be. I don't presume to predict with certainty how such a thing would manifest itself. Perhaps second hand book stores would start offering monthly "subscription" models in which customers could take a certain number of books home to read without buying them. Perhaps non-profits would begin taking the stage.

"Someplace that didn't just stock pile s**tty bestsellers, but also "wasted resources" stocking low demand things like, oh, I don't know, how about computer programming? Oh, right, that'd be a library."
Great, so you're agreeing with me. Libraries are a waste of resources.

If it's not economical for someone to lend me a given programming book, I certainly don't feel justified in forcing you to subsidize the transaction.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"Ad Hominem attacks:
That I'm a "Teabagging moran[sic]".

(A) Moran spelled as is deliberately; Google it if you're unfamilar with the alternate.
(B) Posted in responce to your own ad hominem attacks ("you people," are "marxists," "patriotic doublethink" etc.)

"I am an Anarchist."

I figuered that out from your other post, it's why I didn't waste my time responding to your "tax is theft" "no transaction should be forced" points. I'm sure you cling to them with the ferver of any religious zealot, so a rational conversation about them is out of the question.

"That way, when any customer comes into the store, they won't have any books to rent!"

Point taken, and badly phrased on my part. I stand by the assertion that it wouldn't be the actual books you were browsing in the store, just a place keeper with the actual books themsevles set aside to be rented. Given that they would have but a single copy of probably 98% of their title base, they'd want you looking at something else so you'd still them all, even if that single copy is currently checked out. I stand by my assertion that, in the case of a rental business, merchandising sideline products for sale (including "previously read" books - many copies of bestsellers that aren't anymore that they need to liquidate), would be a far more profitable use of their space.

"it's reasonable to assume that a book rental store would have to be pants on head retarded not to stock more copies than that."

I see. So you assume that just because they aren't in it for the money, libraries don't quantitatively measure demand. There are other ways to count things than with dollars. Libraries use circulation figures (frequency of check out for each book).

As for what the rental store would do, I've already covered that. If they have to rent each copy ten times to break even with the revenue a bookstore would make selling it once (and since bookstore margins are razor-thin as it is and it's therefore safe to assume that the "rental store" would be shooting for more than that), no, they wouldn't have more if there were 8 holds for 4 copies. If they need a total of 40 or 50 rentals to make their revenue on those 4 copies, 8 holds is only about 20% of what it would take for them to even consider ordering one more copy.

"Great, so you're agreeing with me. Libraries are a waste of resources.

If it's not economical for someone to lend me a given programming book, I certainly don't feel justified in forcing you to subsidize the transaction."

My use of scare quotes around your choice of words was your first clue that I was not, in fact, agreeing with you. An investment in an informed populace is not wasted resources. But, again, we already know that you are incapable of considering the possiblity of public investment - it's all "theft!"

The main point of that giant wall of text boils down to this - you guys with your naive and childish belief that the magically market fairy will scatter her invisible hand dust and demand will magically produce . . . exactly what *you personally* happen to want is laughable. One of your original complaints about libraries and availability of programming books would be the same or worse in a for-profit system.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"Moran spelled as is deliberately; Google it if you're unfamilar[sic] with the alternate."
Oh I see, you were being ironic. How clever.

Anarchists being Religious Zealots:
You can call anyone with any viewpoint a religious zealot. You're not really adding anything to the conversation.

Financial motivations of Libraries:
"I see. So you assume that just because they aren't in it for the money, libraries don't quantitatively measure demand. There are other ways to count things than with dollars. Libraries use circulation figures (frequency of check out for each book)."
Let me reiterate: 8 holds on 4 copies of a 10 year old book. I'm not going to make a research project out of this but I've seen this pattern and worse repeated back when I bothered checking libraries. If they do measure demand, they don't bother responding because there is no market mechanism of profits and loss.

"8 holds is only about 20% of what it would take for them to even consider ordering one more copy."
8 holds doesn't mean 8 people total people have ever demanded this book. It's a.) 8 people that can be bothered to stand in line for months and b.) it's a snapshot; meaning that at any given time there will probably be around 8 people waiting in line for the book.

It's like saying a coffee shop would have to have 40 customers standing in line on average all day in order for them to even consider hiring another cashier.

Calling Something "Theft" in scare quotes makes it not so:
"An investment in an informed populace is not wasted resources. But, again, we already know that you are incapable of considering the possiblity of public investment - it's all "theft!" "
Okay, this is where your retardation comes out. No offence. I assume it has something to do years and years of government funded education:

Do you UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between a VOLUNTARY and a COERCED transaction?

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Market Mechanisms:
"exactly what *you personally* happen to want is laughable"
That's not actually what I said - my point of reference was general demand for the books I'm looking for, not my personal demand.

And, I will reiterate my point you keep ignoring: If I don't want their services, if they aren't providing something I consider valuable - then I don't have to pay them for it, simple as that.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"You can call anyone with any viewpoint a religious zealot."

I disagree. Some people are capable of looking at each issue on its own. Evaluating each public investment in the "general welfare" on its own merits. If you are already ideologically committed to the unassailable proposition that all public investment is automatically bad just by virtue of being public, that's where we enter zealot territory. Which is why I continue not to address that point. It's like trying to debate a specific point in the mechanisms of natural selection with someone who, before even enterring the conversation, has already decided that life came into existance in its present forms 6000 years ago. You can try all you want, but you're not even speaking the same language.

Which is where your retardation comes out. I assume from years and years of inductrination in the cult of Rand.

This entire exchange is a great example - what you posit as an utter failure of public libraries (I have to wait for a book), you turn right around and consider a strenghth in a for-profit model (supply and demand for the win). Either way, a decision was made on the basis of allocation of limited resources to limit purchases of a specifc title. The only difference is that the resources saved go into profits for private individuals in one case but not in the other.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

And I suppose that if I assert that rape was wrong in 100% of cases, without even examining the merits of the particular case, I'd be a zealot for that too.

You also didn't answer my question.

Do you UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between a VOLUNTARY and a COERCED transaction?

"The only difference is that the resources saved go into profits for private individuals in one case but not in the other."

"The only difference is that the resources saved go into profits for private individuals in one case but not in the other."
That's not the only difference, you boner. In the one case, the person making the decision is personally liable for the profit or loss incurred, in the other they are not. In the one case all transactions are voluntary and therefore believed by each party to better their condition, in the other they are not.

"I assume from years and years of inductrination[sic] in the cult of Rand."
Rand isn't even an Anarchist. Also, I wasn't raised an Anarchist, it's something I was convinced of through the power of argument. I doubt you could say the same for your position. (Not that I'm claiming it would have a bearing on the truth value of either position.)

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"You also didn't answer my question.
Do you UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between a VOLUNTARY and a COERCED transaction?"

I explained why I wasn't answering that question. I'll make it more explicit. I consider it irrelevant. It doesn't have the Earth-shattering importance you attribute to anywhere else but *within* your faith. It's like I'm trying to have a conversation about a very specific, sub-topic within the science of pharmacology and you keep shouting "Do you UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between XENU and BODY THETANS!"

Over here on the rational side of the fence, we recognize that civilization has always, does now, and will always include both. So yelling about that fact while discussing a specfic case is completely pointless.

"Rand isn't even an Anarchist."

Thank you, I'm perfectly aware of that. I see enough similiarity in your writiings to those of her worshipers that I'm comfortable with that shorthand.

"it's something I was convinced of through the power of argument. I doubt you could say the same for your position."

You keep making these idiotic assumptions, like your original "Marixist" bulls**t that got this conversation off on an antagonistic tone from the very start. PROTIP: You don't know a god-damn thing about me, or how I came to my views (on this topic or any other), or what other views I may have held at earlier stages in my life but outgrew (I'll give you one - Libertarianism. Which I now consider an embarrassing faze of idiocy I passed through when I was too young to know better.)

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"I consider it irrelevant."
In other words, the distinction between voluntary sex and rape is irrelevant.

"It doesn't have the Earth-shattering importance you attribute to anywhere else but *within* your faith."
Whether an action is forced or voluntary is of the essence.

"Do you UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between XENU and BODY THETANS!"
So, is XENU coercion and BODY THETANS voluntary transactions or the other way around?

"Marxist Bulls**t"
You regard profit as exploitative. You don't grasp the calculation problem. You don't understand the nature of incentives.

"Over here on the rational side of the fence, we recognize that civilization has always, does now, and will always include both. So yelling about that fact while discussing a specfic[sic] case is completely pointless."
That's a complete non-sequitur.
"Both violence and voluntary cooperation exist, therefore it's irrelevant in a specific case whether the means employed are voluntary or based on force."
Yikes.

"embarrassing faze[sic] of idiocy"
Well, I'm certainly glad you grew out of that faze.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

This account has been closed by the user

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Is this what you're talking about? Because this is apparently a non-profit organization which is not funded by taxation. So, no, unless you have something further to contribute Ben Franking is decidedly stationary in relation to my comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Company_of_Philadelphia

• Reply