While it is argued that public libraries are an essential asset for societies and their services should be provided free of charge, others argue that these institutions are a burden on taxpayers. In this essay I will defend both sides of the argument, and then I will show my own perspective.
On the one hand, some people argue that public libraries help society members to acquire knowledge easily. In addition to that, these institutions act as an archive for all kinds of information, especially local achievements which motivate society members to get better education and aspire to further success. Consequently, these libraries should continue to benefit from public funds and ought to be accessible to all community members without entrance fees. For example, numerous studies have concluded that, nations which have more free public libraries per capita obtained higher education levels and scientific achievements per inhabitant than countries with fewer public libraries.
On the other hand, other people argue that the modern technological advancements could provide other educational resources without wasting the government's money. Resources like public internet access could achieve the same level of benefits while costing much less. Moreover, spending the excess money to improve other public facilities like schools and parks, could prove to be more beneficial for societies. Hence, some people think that it is possible to minimize public spending on libraries without compromizing the education quality.
In conclusion, while some people think that we should spend less money on public libraries and look for technological solutions to maintain the same benefits, others argue that public libraries are still important to societies on many levels, especially when it comes to highlighting local achievements. In my opinion, public libraries are an essential part of any society, and their benefits could not be compensated in other ways.
While it
is argued
that
public
libraries are an essential asset for
societies
and their services should
be provided
free of charge, others
argue
that these institutions are a burden on taxpayers. In this essay I will defend both sides of the argument, and then I will
show
my
own
perspective.
On the one hand,
some
people
argue
that
public
libraries
help
society
members to acquire knowledge
easily
.
In addition
to that, these institutions act as an archive for all kinds of information,
especially
local achievements which motivate
society
members to
get
better education and aspire to
further
success.
Consequently
, these libraries should continue to
benefit
from
public
funds and ought to be accessible to all community members without entrance fees.
For example
, numerous studies have concluded that, nations which have more free
public
libraries per capita obtained higher education levels and scientific achievements per inhabitant than countries with fewer
public
libraries.
On the
other
hand,
other
people
argue
that the modern technological advancements could provide
other
educational resources without wasting the
government
's money. Resources like
public
internet access could achieve the same level of
benefits
while costing much less.
Moreover
, spending the excess money to
improve
other
public
facilities like schools and parks, could prove to be more beneficial for
societies
.
Hence
,
some
people
think
that it is possible to minimize
public
spending on libraries without
compromizing
the education quality.
In conclusion
, while
some
people
think
that we should spend less money on
public
libraries and look for technological solutions to maintain the same
benefits
, others
argue
that
public
libraries are
still
important
to
societies
on
many
levels,
especially
when it
comes
to highlighting local achievements. In my opinion,
public
libraries are an essential part of any
society
, and their
benefits
could not
be compensated
in
other
ways.