Although they were probably a drop in the ocean, in the UK at least.
A local historian recently gave a talk about how the Carnegie Foundation funded the building of public libraries in the early 20th century: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku-jU4I0hZ8
People do vote for levies to pay for libraries, and libraries are still built. The places with the best libraries willingly pay a lot for them.
“I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.” In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip.
“You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug. From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door. “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.”
― Philip K. Dick, Ubik
(h/t Douglas Adams)
Like, not just "Do you support continued funding of public libraries", or even "Do you think public libraries could be introduced today", but an actual reality check of how much their actions align with their actual preferences. I wouldn't be surprised if people would actually admit to hypothetically opposing something they are in favour of in practice.
The best and largest libraries in the history of the world are being built and expanded right now on the internet, with free and unlimited access for everybody.
People generally prefer free market solutions to problems because commons solutions like public libraries only work when there is sufficient social cohesion. Libraries work if people respect them. They do not work if people treat them like homeless shelters.
Public libraries will disappear if their management continues to be dominated by far-left ideologues who prioritise being "inclusive" over having a safe, enjoyable and quiet environment.
Of course it becomes known that a library doesn't mind the patronage of the homeless and disenfranchised, then people begin to abuse the hospitality. People try to shower and shave and brush their teeth in the restrooms. People drag in half a shopping cart's worth of bags and personal belongings, and camp out with a pillow and blanket. People deface or steal books, DVDs, and other materials. People have mental health crises in front of the other staff and patrons. Of course these disruptions are not the sole purview of the homeless.
But they cause security to be tightened, and big signs that prohibit lots of stuff are posted, and the collection dwindles to whatever nobody wanted to steal. Man, I've really felt the pinch there. COVID-19 did libraries a favor in this regard, because they had a plausible excuse to flush anyone and everyone out of the building and off the premises, and do a great reset of the whole situation.
Also, the "free market solution" would have been to just let the libraries offer ebooks on their site. Digital distribution gutted libraries' ability to provide their core service, because now they need permission and licensing to do so. Homeless people using libraries as makeshift shelters isn't new, you just never noticed it back when everyone was using libraries.
It is very, very easy to check that this isn't true.
Capitalism was described and critiqued as such since the mid-1800s. The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, is certainly no older than "the idea that there could even exist something other than capitalism".
Very few public libraries in the US are older than this, and the era of 'robber barons' took place after this (1860 or 1870 to 1900 or 1910).
So-called "capitalism" (a purely propagandistic word) has existed as long as there have existed pairs of persons A and B such that A has some X and B has some Y and A desires Y more than X and B desires X more than Y. The natural thing to do here is exchange X and Y, satisfying both A and B. We didnt need a name for "the economic system where trade is allowed" until a few insane people suggested that all trade should go through a government middleman and lack of consent should be ignored.
It's disappointing that there are people who think that "far-left ideologues" have anything to do with the decline of public libraries.
Similarly there was no word for "the economic system where buyers and sellers of goods and services _aren't_ forbidden from buying and selling those goods and services except from and to the state" until communists turned up and proposed a system with that restriction. We didnt need a word for "an economy where commerce is permissible", in other words, until someone suggested it might be forbidden.
The term capitalism started to be used during the Enlightment in order to describe the new economic system that replaced the one that immediately preceded it, often loosely referred to as feudalism, a system where large land-owners held all the economic power and effectively ruled the lives of their serfs/tenants, and didn’t feel the need to invest their excess wealth into improving the means of production to increase productivity. The merchants, traders and crafts-people had little to no power under this system – at least not until they had their own revolutions.