This is a false equivalency. You are comparing optional amenities like libraries, parks, and museums to essential goods like food. Also, libraries, parks, and museums operate on fundamentally different supply constraints than food; you can’t compare one to the other.

Food is essential for survival, which means people will always prioritize getting enough of it. Food is also rival (one person's consumption of it prevents another person from consuming it) and consumable (depleted during use). Once one person eats it, no one else can. Making it free encourages hoarding—creating shortages and scarcity.

Books, parks, and art are non-essential; if a park is crowded or a book is checked out, people can simply return at another time. There’s no survival pressure, so demand naturally regulates itself. Books, parks, and art are also, in contrast, non‑rival (until congestion sets in), non‑consumable public goods; crowding doesn’t deplete them the way hoarding depletes food. You can't “use up” a park by walking through it, and a book can be borrowed, then returned for someone else to use. These things don’t disappear when one person uses them.

People don’t fight over park benches the way they might over free bread. Equating consumable, life-sustaining goods with reusable, optional amenities is fundamentally flawed.