On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:49:14 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

>> By that logic, the money that I pay to buy a box of Fruit Loops goes to
>> the library, because some worker somewhere who benefits from my payment
>> for the cereal might someday go to school there and pay tuition, thus
>> "subsidizing" my access to the materials in the library?  That's
>> tenuous at best.
> 
> I disagree that my paragraph up there is tenuous. I do think your
> example is tenuous. I do agree that, formally, the formal proposition
> that expresses the argument is a contingency; so, indeed, formal logic
> alone will not give us further relevant knowledge.

There's really not a lot of difference between the two - the idea you're 
proposing is that indirect payment (money going to someone from a 
government grant that might go to creating something that might be kept 
in the library) should "count" towards allowing anyone to use the library.

>> Question:  Does Princeton let you go into the library without paying,
>> and just not let you borrow materials?  I know with the Salt Lake City
>> public library, you don't need a library card to enter the library,
>> just to borrow materials.
> 
> I didn't test it, but I don't think they'd see any problems in having
> random people reading books in there.

So then the only issue is that you cannot borrow materials.  That reduces 
the argument really since it's not a question of access.

> Incidentally, I think that they actually see a problem in opposing
> letting random people in. They would have to check everyone's cards upon
> entrance. A real pain in the ass, and surely to upset students. :-)

Agreed.

Post a reply to this message