One of the reasons I don’t like socialism is public bathrooms.
A public bathroom is about as basic a shared resource as you can get. Everyone gets to use it, and everyone is expected to show a little consideration for the next person. The rules aren’t particularly complicated.
And yet, a shocking number of adults can’t even manage to throw their paper towels in the trash. Some will pee all over a toilet seat and leave it for the next person. And the next person, who didn’t make the mess, certainly isn’t going to clean it up either.
Now imagine trusting these same people to collectively manage an entire economy.
We can’t even get everyone to agree that cleaning up their own pee is a personal responsibility, but somehow we’re supposed to believe everyone will become hardworking, responsible, and considerate when we’re sharing the fruits of each other’s labor.
Now, compare your average public restroom to a Buc-ee’s bathroom.
Buc-ee’s figured something out. Clean bathrooms attract customers. Customers spend money. So the company has a financial incentive to keep those bathrooms spotless. They hire people to maintain them, hold employees accountable, and compete for your business.
And people will literally plan their road trips around stopping there.
That’s capitalism. Someone recognized a problem, found a way to solve it, and made money because people valued the result.
Of course, not everyone contributes equally to society. Some people work harder, make better decisions, and take more responsibility. Others seem perfectly content making life more difficult for everyone around them.
I believe people should have the freedom to live however they choose. I also believe in helping people who genuinely need it.
But I have a hard time accepting an economic philosophy that expects me to trust everyone to act in the collective interest when some people can’t be bothered to clean up after themselves.
Buc-ee’s figured out how to get people to willingly pay for a better experience.
Socialism wants me to believe the people leaving paper towels on the floor will suddenly become responsible stewards of everyone else’s resources.
I’m going with the beaver.
How surprised are we that the person who left this comment chose these pics for a profile and background photo? 🙄
Her claim is not scientific, but philosophical, even religious. Why do developmental differences between fetuses and neonates confer personhood on the latter and make it okay to kill the former? “Science” does not make value judgments. People impose value on facts, and it’s disingenuous of this person not to acknowledge that’s what she’s doing.
I don’t have a problem making moral arguments based on philosophy or religion. But if you’re going to claim that it is perfectly morally neutral to kill babies in the womb because they’re developmentally different than born children, I’m going to need a very robust moral framework for that. Invoking “Science” is not enough.
The Right to life from the moment of conception is at stake this election. Three states are trying to expand abortion access, including making it part of their state constitutions via proposition.
It is our responsibility to vote to protect life, if you’re in:
Idaho: Vote NO on Prop 1
Nevada: Vote NO on Question 6
Virginia: Vote NO on Question 1
But if you’re in Missouri:
Vote YES on amendment 3 to protect life in the womb and stop transitioning minors.
Tune into the BYU devotional at 11:00 AM MST to see our Family Section Executive Editor @MJulietIngram perform in a trio for the opening musical number!
The speaker will be Audrey Perry Martin, Assistant to the President and University Spokesperson.
Idaho has one of the strongest pro-life laws in America.
Proposition 1 could change that.
It would establish a “right” to abortion until a baby can survive outside the womb.
By 20 weeks, a baby already has tiny fingers and toes, unique fingerprints, and fingernails. They can move, hiccup, and suck their thumb.
They may be small, defenseless, and dependent, but they’re equally deserving of love and protection.
Vote NO on Prop 1.
Erik Davis, representing @BYU, voiced opposition over the social harm that could arise from the additional availability of alcohol, and argued that Provo’s distinctive community character is an asset worth protecting. | By @KimballCall and Margot Griffin
LISTEN: Planned Parenthood Utah President admits defeating amendment B is important for future pro-abortion legislation in Utah.
Spread far and wide! Vote yes on B!