The federalist

No late fees at our library, so no more book returns

Libraries Abandon Late Fees: A New Era of Borrowing

Libraries all​ over the country are⁣ ending the longstanding library tradition of fining patrons for returning books late or not‌ at all. It’s another self-destruction tactic subtler and less morally abominable than using their dedicated taxpayer funds ‌to ​purchase pornography for children.

Our local government library ended late⁤ fees in ⁤the ‍last year, so I quickly‍ stopped returning books on time.⁣ The lack ​of fees was especially helpful in ​recently allowing me to keep for an extra month⁢ the book Albion’s Seed. I couldn’t ⁤manage ‌to finish that magnificent tome in the usual three-week checkout period. So I⁤ just kept ignoring the “overdue book”⁢ notifications the ⁢library frantically sent.⁣ If there’s no penalty, why‌ should I ⁢care?

Common courtesy might be one reason. Someone else ​appears⁣ to have placed a hold on our ‌library’s copy of Albion’s Seed that I temporarily hoarded. That’s why I kept it overdue — because I couldn’t renew it. Sorry, stranger. Our library doesn’t penalize people for keeping books indefinitely, so ​I guess your hold means nothing now. I won’t begrudge you doing the same to the ⁤next ​person who⁣ wants to read⁣ that ‍absorbing American history tome. It is 900​ pages long, after all.

The American⁤ Library Association​ — the same publicly funded major library​ association whose current president is a ⁤“Marxist lesbian” — formally supported ending all⁣ library fees in ⁣2019. Not surprisingly, the ⁢policy cited essentially Marxist justifications for urging all ⁤libraries to⁣ end late penalties and book replacement fees.

“[T]he charging ⁣of fees and ‍levies for information services, including ‍those services utilizing the ​latest information technology,⁤ is discriminatory in publicly supported institutions,” the resolution ALA adopted says. The resolution is titled “Resolution on Monetary Library Fines as​ a Form of Social Inequity.” It further states, “[M]onetary fines present an economic barrier to access of library materials and services,” and it “urges governing ‌bodies of libraries to strengthen funding support for libraries so they are not dependent ⁤on monetary fines as a necessary source⁢ of revenue.”

This‌ essentially calls for unlimited public expenditure ‍on any material ⁤or service a library provides. Some ⁣might ​say that’s⁢ not true because many libraries ⁢like those⁤ in⁤ New York ⁢City still charge replacement fees for books ⁢that are never returned. Advocates of ending late fees claim that offering “fee amnesty” dramatically increased the return of long-lost library items by people​ who kept the​ materials to ‌avoid ‌penalties.

But that only suggests an occasional,​ temporary⁤ jubilee can‍ be useful. It⁢ doesn’t recommend forever ending all⁣ penalties against what is effectively stealing public materials.‍ I suspect,​ based on my own experience, that ending late fees will also result in people​ keeping⁢ library ⁤items out longer, depriving others of access to them ⁢for months like I did with Albion’s Seed. And ending book replacement‍ fees, ​the ​final goal the ALA ​policy also calls for, will result in​ institutionally sanctioned theft of‍ public resources.

If Late Fees Are ‘Inequitable,’​ So Are‍ Replacement Fees

If ⁢there are ​effectively⁤ no overdue⁣ dates ⁣then when, ‍really, can the library say the book ⁤is lost instead of merely ⁤late? To impose a ⁤replacement ​fee for not⁣ returning a ⁤book ‌after six months seems like just lengthening the period​ of overdue fees rather than fully eliminating them, ‍as the ‍ALA resolution calls for. And‍ if there’s no fee‍ after six months, why should there be a fee after one year, or‍ five, or 10?

If‍ late ⁣fees are “social inequity” and an “economic⁣ barrier,” ‌so are replacement fees. The logical outcome of this idea would be ⁢to erase all fines, just as the ALA resolution states. This would ⁤make public libraries basically a tax-sponsored Amazon. If ⁣there were no replacement fees, anyone who wanted a book, puzzle, game, ⁢DVD —⁢ or⁤ any other⁤ item libraries‌ lend — would merely need to be the first one to the shelves to‍ own⁤ a free taxpayer-paid leisure activity.

If‌ we⁤ could also continue requesting that our libraries buy certain books, as‌ I do‍ occasionally, ⁣libraries would ‌turn into ‌a free-for-all of access to public book funds. Given that the people running this organization are publicly ⁤declared Marxists, that’s‍ almost⁢ certainly their desire. It would allow them⁣ to‍ argue for bigger library budgets because so many⁢ people want books and “can’t afford them.”

Econ 101: Supply affects demand. ⁤If​ it costs nothing to borrow a‌ book,⁤ game, or DVD without returning it, more people are going to​ borrow without returning ‌— i.e., steal.

Now, I have⁤ strong⁣ moral inhibitions⁢ against stealing. I took a tiny mirror from a junk shop⁤ as a child, and my ⁢mother ⁢made me return it to the store owner, a terrifying experience that forever cured me of​ taking ‌other people’s stuff. Having finally finished Albion’s Seed as fast​ as I could, it’s now back at the public⁣ library.

But many people⁤ don’t have the same ‌moral qualms about not only stealing but also inconveniencing​ other people ‍like I⁣ did with⁤ the person who put the book I had on⁢ hold. Without any external checks on our natural selfish impulses, ‍the selfish impulses become action far more often. It’s the⁣ classic‌ tragedy of the ⁢commons.

This Is ⁤Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

It’s also another instance of degrading ⁤public places in a bigoted assumption that poor people just can’t be expected to meet the standards other people can. It stoops to the ⁢level⁢ of the worst-behaved in our society instead of maintaining high expectations for all.

The New York Public Library president, aptly⁢ named Tony Marx, claimed that erasing‌ fines aims to create a​ “more equitable society.” Seattle’s ⁣public library leaders said ending fines⁣ was especially beneficial to “low-income” patrons. Why should public standards be ⁢lowered to the ‌level of the worst-behaved, ​and the ​poor just assumed to be worse-behaved than others?

This ⁢is the same dynamic‌ underlying ⁤libraries’ slide into effective homeless ⁣shelters, allowing unpleasant vagrants‌ to ‍scare decent ‍patrons away ⁢because ensuring clean, safe, and non-threatening public spaces is⁣ somehow seen as evil⁣ and uncompassionate. The truth ⁣is ​the opposite. The public square should not be controlled by disorderly people.​ Disorderly people should be required⁤ to shape up to ⁤be accepted in public.⁣ Rewarding rudeness,⁤ incivility, and crime ensures it will continue to increase.

Clearly, ending all‌ library fees ⁣is​ not fair or practical. But that has never ⁢stopped cultural⁤ Marxists. Indeed, illogic ⁤seems to inflame⁤ their passions further, ⁣making them even more angry ⁢and committed to their ​contradictory and nonsensical​ ideas like the Red Queen of Alice In Wonderland.


How can libraries address the potential negative impacts of abolishing late⁣ fees

G”>The Shift Towards Abolishing Late Fees in Libraries: A Discussion on the Benefits and Concerns

Libraries have long⁢ been an invaluable resource for communities, providing access⁣ to knowledge and fostering a love for reading. However, the tradition of imposing late fees on ⁤patrons who fail to return borrowed items ⁤on time‍ has ⁤been a contentious issue.‍ In recent years, there has been a shift towards abolishing late fees in libraries across the country, sparking a ⁢debate on the effectiveness and consequences‌ of such a‌ decision.

One of ‌the​ primary arguments in favor of eliminating‍ late fees is⁢ the promotion of equitable access to library resources. Advocates argue that late fees disproportionately impact low-income individuals, who may be deterred from borrowing⁢ materials⁤ due to‍ the fear of accruing fines they cannot afford to pay. By removing this‌ financial barrier,‍ libraries aim to ensure that all members of ‌the community have equal opportunities ‍to benefit from their services.

Additionally, the decision to abandon late fees is often motivated by⁤ a desire to foster ‌a positive and welcoming environment within libraries. Late fees can create an atmosphere of anxiety and embarrassment for patrons, especially those ‍who struggle with ⁣organizing their schedules or face unexpected circumstances. By removing the punitive nature of late fees, libraries hope to encourage a more inclusive and supportive atmosphere.

However, critics argue that the abandonment of late fees may have unintended consequences. ⁢One concern is that it may lead to an increase in unreturned items, depriving other patrons of access to resources and straining library budgets. The ⁣fear ⁤of‌ incurring fines has traditionally served as an incentive for patrons ‌to return​ items promptly, ensuring a smooth circulation system. Without this deterrent, the ⁣risk⁣ of theft or prolonged possession of library materials may rise.

Furthermore, the elimination of late fees raises questions about personal responsibility and accountability. Opponents argue​ that late fees serve as a reminder to patrons to fulfill their obligations and ⁢respect shared resources. By removing these consequences, some believe that it sends a message ‍that there are no repercussions for⁤ failing to return borrowed items, ultimately undermining the principles of responsibility and community welfare.

It ‌is worth noting that the decision to abolish late fees is not without its complexities. Libraries must ⁤explore alternative strategies to mitigate the ​potential negative⁢ impacts, such as implementing stricter ‍overdue ‍item limits or employing ⁢more‌ effective methods of communication​ to remind patrons of their responsibilities. Additionally, securing adequate funding for libraries becomes⁤ paramount, as the absence of late fees leaves a significant gap ⁢in revenue.

In conclusion, the elimination of late fees ⁣in ⁤libraries represents a significant shift⁣ towards a more equitable and user-friendly borrowing system. By removing financial barriers and fostering a supportive atmosphere, libraries aim to enhance⁢ accessibility and attract a broader range of patrons. However, the concerns surrounding increased unreturned items and the erosion of personal responsibility must be adequately addressed.

Ultimately, the future of late fees in libraries ⁢will depend on finding a delicate balance between promoting equal access and maintaining the efficient circulation of resources.‍ As libraries continue to ⁤adapt and⁤ evolve in response ⁣to changing societal norms, it is crucial to consider both the benefits and potential challenges associated ⁤with ⁢this ‍new era of borrowing.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker