Let’s Vote it Out

A quick search in the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library database regrettably lacks any evidence that Lincoln ever said, “All I have learned, I learned from books,” or anything else about getting books from a friend. Nor does either statement appear anywhere in the nine-volume Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler. Beautiful as these sentiments are, there is no evidence that Lincoln said them beyond citationless Google searches. While fake Lincoln quotes are far from new or particularly important in isolation, they are indicative of a pattern by lazy local bureaucrats to insult readers with errors of both logic and fact, followed by excuses for them.

First, before economically illiterate ideologues embarrass themselves further, a quick word is needed on how prices and exchanges work. Modern economics since the 1870s began with dismissing the relevance of an “average price” of anything to understanding the terms of a particular exchange. I should hope these same economic illiterates do not make turns at traffic stops based on the “average” amount of traffic. This is rooted in a concept called marginal utility – the costs and benefits between alternatives are compared on the margin, not on “average.” Averages are, of course, helpful for understanding different questions, but in the ongoing witch hunt, this would, at best, conflate a general claim with a particular claim. These basic concepts are typically understood well enough following a high school course in economics, logic, and statistics but apparently not well enough by Warren County’s self-anointed, all while claiming the expertise needed to transfer decision-making authority away from taxpayers and parents on behalf of their children. Having addressed the obvious, I’m happy to continue a constructive discussion with the adults.

Devon Downes is Warren County’s resident Classical Liberal. An endangered species in American politics, you will find no one more absolutist about the protection of individual rights and more contemptuous of collectivist ideologies. His proposal for privatization is not without some merit. Given the concerns that have been expressed, you would think the first people to advocate privatization would be the apologists for Samuels Public Library. Let’s not forget that the initial concern made in the Royal Examiner on August 7, 2023, was that the Board of Supervisors was imposing a religious agenda on others without their consent.

The case for privatization echoes the case made by Jefferson, Madison, and Paine in favor of the separation of church and state, doing away with political-religious establishments supported by taxpayers and maintaining the individual’s right to the free exercise of religion. While our local anointed should be satisfied with this arrangement given their own objections, Devon’s own understanding of Lincoln suggests they will never be satisfied with anything short of positive support, by force if necessary. The same bureaucrats are perfectly happy imposing a religious dogma that reduces individual human beings – and children at that – to a group identity (which might explain why they can’t distinguish one proposal from another, but I digress). In their search for religious persecution, they didn’t bother checking the mirror as they became too busy searching for heretics to burn.

Supposedly, it wasn’t clear why Lincoln’s observations are relevant to this ongoing discussion, so let’s revisit what he said. “[M]y understanding is that Popular Sovereignty, as now applied to the question of slavery, does allow the people to have Slavery if they want to, but does not allow them not to have slavery if they do not want it.” As regards the library, do we, as taxpayers, not have a right to a say in what we have paid for? It was just recently alleged that more than five hundred reconsideration forms do want sexually suggestive books removed entirely. If this is the case, are these more than five hundred patrons and constituents not entitled to a say in what they have paid for as taxpayers, or are a minority of bureaucrats entitled to discriminate against views less anointed than their own?

Devon’s argument builds on the intellectual tradition of the American Founding, yet no less of a figure than John Stuart Mill recognized the appropriate role of public institutions provided the government doesn’t impose bans on private options. A ban is to “officially or legally prohibit,” we have examples of such bans in the attempt at alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s, the more recent failure of drug prohibition, and bans on guns in schools and other government buildings. Parents are perfectly free to buy any books they please for their children wherever books are sold, just as consumers are free today to buy alcohol, marijuana, and guns. But library bureaucrats would seem to require the public library to make available alcohol, marijuana, and guns, calling the absence of taxpayer support for these items equivalent to “censorship.”

All the people of Warren County ask for is a say in what they pay for. Let’s settle these problems by a majority vote, not by rule from a minority of bureaucrats. As we resolve the issue at the ballot box, we are happy to wait on Warren County’s anointed to clarify if they think taxpayers should have a say in what they pay for or if taxpayers should not be forced to pay for what they do not want. In either case, they have to pick a lane.

Stephen Kurtz
Warren County

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.