The Commons

Public libraries are important because they play a role in the circulation of FREE information, which is (as all the reading assignments have been asserting) becoming more and more rare as copyright laws continue to repress information sharing, manipulating the landscape of the internet/digital environment.

Once again, we come back to the idea of Democracy (which is like freedom and sharing and stuff), and Bollier explicitly states the connection between libraries and Democracy: "Librarians have always embodied some of the most fundamental virtues of Western civilization. They are dedicated to the freedom to read and learn and share information. They are committed to the free flow of knowledge, which is indispensable in a democracy." The function of the library is essentially identical to that of the internet, which is to promote the spread of information/ideas/creativity to EVERYONE, not just those who have the money to pay for it (I think it is fascinating that we can read books for free at a library, but the eXact same thing costs us money (in most places) when we read it online).

And this also has to do with the commons, (which Bollier defines as "a generic term that refers to a wide array of creations of nature and society that we inherit freely, share and hold in trust for future generations") which is, most importantly, "'owned' by a defined community; it is managed with long-term goals for the good of all; and it is very careful about commodifying a resource, lest that lead to its degradation or social inequities." I like the distinction made here between the goals of a "commons" (free info and stuff) vs the goal of a market, which sees everything in terms of money. And these goals are the reason that copyright makes no sense at all to those that aren't making a shitload of money off it.

I like Vaidhyanathan's characterization of anarchy as "radical democracy" because usually I just picture a bunch of punk kids from the early nineties with leather pants and mohawks beating each other up. But it makes sense, because (for Vaidhyanathan at least) the opposite to anarchy is oligarchy, which is a system of more and more governmental control (things like censorship, copyright, etc) which is why people are so concerned about the future of information sharing. As far as libraries go, the last thing that we need is oligarchical control, which would only further limit the way information is shared between people, so I guess, yeah

"go anarchy."