[NoFunPedant]

Here's another obvious-seeming question: Why should would-be censors be granted power over libraries? Instead of concocting expensive schemes to get around attempts at censorship, how about if we address the problem at the source by protecting libraries, which won't cost anything?

[bell-cot]

> Why should would-be censors be granted power...

> how about if we address the problem ... which wouldn't cost anything?

This is not a Philosophy 487 essay, where clever arguments about "should" have the power to determine your, um, er - your essay grade.

Reality is that they already have a great deal of power, and are gaining more.

Could you explain your idea for "addressing the problem at the source ... which won't cost anything"? I'm concerned that that's just a "if all the Supreme Court Justices suddenly decided to do the Right Thing..." daydream.

[NoFunPedant]

Addressing the problem at the source would be a broad-based political movement that demanded enforcement of the First Amendment and a restoration of constitutional norms. That kind of political movement isn't a pipe dream -- two political scientists have extensively studied how nonviolent popular movements have overturned dictatorships: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678278_Why_Civil...

Democracy did not come to exist because our rulers graciously granted it, but because the people demanded it and fought for it. Our current abandonment of democracy is not happening because the rulers have so much power, but because we the people continuously grant them power through our own inaction. A broad-based political movement could successfully halt the slide toward fascism and restore democracy.

I am sure many people will dismiss this idea as naive. I would ask them to consider two possibilities: (1) Maybe the perception that political action is futile is not a rational judgment based on facts, but a cultural prejudice based on a fashion for cynicism. (2) A widespread perception that political action is futile is a necessary condition for authoritarian government. People who believe that political action produces practical results are more likely to engage in political activity that restrains the power of elites.

[bell-cot]

Nice set of ideals - but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longtermism#Criticism

And even if everything works out exactly as you're hoping - it'll be years before you manage to put a book in any kid's hands.

[NoFunPedant]

I don't know how you imagine longtermism is relevant to this discussion -- the crisis is happening right now in front of all of us and the need for action is right now.

The threat against libraries is just one part of a broader threat against all freedom of thought, speech, and criticism of the government in the United States. The key issue is not just the one question of whether children have access to books (although that is very important); the key issue is that the government has no right, authority, or business trying to control what is said and thought.

I love how you write "ideals" as if it's a dirty word. In a general political crisis like the current moment, ideals really do matter. You can't fight an authoritarian government unless you're willing to stick your neck out, and people only stick their necks out when they believe that principles are more important than their immediate self-interest. The whole purpose of an authoritarian government is to silence opposition through threats and bribes. If you don't believe that some principles are more important than possible losses and gains, you're always going to be vulnerable to being victimized by authoritarian government. This has concrete, practical results -- idealists can win because they take action; cynics will always lose because they won't act. In a time like this, cynicism is not the smart play.