- Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
In our current environment, this is unfortunately true. This is something we have brought onto ourselves by being weak and allowing in people who do not fit and are not wanted by the wider society. In an ideal nation, these would be nonexistant and only a minimal amount of surveillance might be needed in order to comply with police regulations, not counter terrorism ones. Things like the PRISM program and the GALILEO services should burn a heavy scar into anyone who is conscious about his privacy in his communications, as we all should be.
- A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
This is objectively true, no matter how you look at it. While this does not mean Democracy is made irrelevant, it means that a lot needs to be improved in order for it to become viable for any nation in the modern era to be able to address a volatile market, political system or subversive group. A benefit to a one party system would be just that and the fact that, as history shows, there is more stringent requirements for a political career than bribing a lot of uneducated voters with food or money. It is why Democracy is inherently bad, since it gives room for bad actors to come to power and represent a faux majority, which likely voted for something completely different.
- Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
- The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.
Yes! There should not be a second chance for serious offenders as pedophiles, necrophiliacs, corpophiliacs and other such degenerates. These people do not learn, they do not adapt and their stay at prison is just a waste of money. Same goes for mass murderers and terrorists, albeit passed through a more vigorous research due to its potential to be politically motivated slander. The death penalty, when active, will act as an active deterrant to any criminal that does not have a death wish. Furthermore, it will save the government budget a hefty sum that would have otherwise been wasted on such people.
- *In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.
I agree. Hierarchy and an authoritative structure is what built and currently maintains civilization. Some people try to argue that civilization can exist without that, but will lose the argument against any behavioural psychologist. There have been documented cases in history with total Anarchy being tried, only to resort to a fallback on some sort of hierarchial structure or the extinction of that group. If you can put 2+2 together, you can see why anarchist memes like "Recreational Nukes" do exist. And even if you don't, in an Anarchy, you will.
- Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
True. Throwing paint at a canvas does not constitute art and neither does random shapes and lines drawn out of boredom. Art should be brought back to what it was during renaissance times and be actually aesthetically pleasing and culturally significant to the average person and not meant for some niche group of hipster art fucks that like to sniff their own farts.
- In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
This majorly depends on the offence. On lighter offences,like vandalism or petty theft, this is incorrent. But for murder, rape and the likes, this statement holds true. As mentioned before, no point in wasting finances on the scum of society.
- It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
Again, Yes. Some people are beyond fixing and should not have any resources dedicated to trying to do just that. It is better to leave them to rot in a jail cell or put them in an internment camp.
- The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
As anyone in adulthood will tell you, its easier to live on food, than on culture. There should be room for both, but industry should be more important to citizens and government since that it how we improve society and better out living conditions.
- Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
Right again! The core of the nation is the family unit. In order to have a stable family unit, the woman should take care of her husband and their children. In turn, the husband should be required to financially provide for the family and physically ensure their protection and well-being. This type of unit has kept society and civilization going and evolving, which is why it holds such a huge significance in a proper nation. A mother is both a mother to her children and to her nation.
- Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.
I am sort of split on this as it can go either way. On one side are the greedy multinationals who seek to exploit current working environments for a slight increase in profit, but there are territories rich in resources that are mishandled and wasted on people like those in Africa or India. If I had to pick a side, I would be supporting this statement somewhat, since if not, there would be a forced argument for immigration, if not anything else.
- Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.
I find myself agreeing with this too. It is normal for preteens and early teens to be "rebels" and rebel against the system, but at some point, this needs to be replaced by a mindset of conformity in a good world. The idea of a "rebellious youth" should be just that. At some point by early adulthood, the individual has to have realized the destructive nature of hir early ideas and the potential for trouble they bring in most cases.