There is a library that gives borrowers a ticket showing them how much they have saved by going to the library instead of buying the books. No doubt, the intention is to encourage more readers to use libraries, but surely the purpose of libraries is to make books available to those who cannot afford them, and to encourage readers to experiment with their choice of reading, not to deter those who can afford it from buying books.
Among the arguments for and against the practice put forward by members of the book group I belong to is the opinion that writers will continue to write even if no one buys their books, because they write for the joy of it and the pleasure it gives to others. My immediate reaction to this is that authors also need to eat.
Although, to paraphrase Frank Norris, to have written is heaven, he also said that to write is hell. Writers spend years honing their craft/art, agonise over every word and often receive unconstructive criticism that weighs far more heavily than praise. Yet they are expected to work for the love of it, and the occasional moment of kudos. Even if writing was unmitigated joy, does the fact that you enjoy your work really mean that you shouldn't be paid for it? Try telling that to a nurse or a bus driver.
If people didn't buy books, publishers would go out of business, then all authors would be forced to self-publish. However, without selling their work they would not be able to pay beta-readers, proof-readers, copy-editors, cover designers and printers, or to afford computers and the internet, advertising or any other marketing tools. Ultimately, the result would be no books on the library shelves for people to borrow–not what the library which inspired this debate intended, I'm sure.
While I agree with Neil Gaiman that readers should not be apologetic about borrowing books or buying them secondhand, because every writer wants to be read, neither should they be made to feel that have wasted their money for buying a new one.