I think late-term abortions amount to murder but I'm a little murkier about earlier abortions. I don't know how much a fetus in the first trimester can feel pain; I believe that children below a certain age that are killed go to heaven; and an unwanted child is not apt to have a very good life, may end up destroying other lives too, and is a burden upon society: their existence harms every citizen that is compelled to support them through taxes.
Parents of an unwanted child should be able to give them up for adoption, but bringing the child to term is a large burden on either the parents (who have no desire to expend effort, time, or money on the child's health, e.g. by the mother taking care of her body by taking vitamins and abstaining from alcohol or cigarettes, nor lose time from work or play). Who will pay for this loss of time and income? If nobody's offering—and it's not the responsibility of anyone else to do so, but religious charities may choose to—then the parents have no incentive not to abort, legally or otherwise. And what happens if nobody wants to adopt the child? Again it's nobody's responsibility, so is dependent on charity for very existence.
I don't think unions had much to do with it: they turned corrupt and lazy almost immediately, and managed to get coercive laws passed amounting to allowing them to use force or for government to do so to prop up their pay and benefits. Collective bargaining is great as long as government compulsion is kept out of it. If collective bargaining is good, then let people voluntarily join unions, and let others choose not to: and if the non-union employees get to take home more play (no dues) but also get fired first, that's fine. Government shouldn't compel employers to deal with unions, nor employees to join them, nor restrict ability to strike, nor employee ability to hire replacements.
Clearly illustrated by history. Governments attempt to manipulate the economy and create bubbles, and shortages, and resource misallocation: the free market is a vast distributed network that generally allocates resources efficiently, modulo some temporary misalignments which are smoothed by arbitrageurs.
The state should not be involved in commercial enterprises. Such involvement in the case of media will tend toward propaganda, or toward inefficient dictation of what should be aired rather than letting listeners and viewers choose.
If my money is being redistributed to poor parents through taxation, I'd like to be able to limit reproduction to those that can afford it and will best take care of their children. If not—in a libertarian society—I'd vote "Disagree (4)" because I still don't want to promote negligent parents creating more likely criminals: in general people should be free to do as they want if their actions aren't hurting others—and raising likely criminals will hurt others.
There are no rights that require positive action on the part of another. Since healthcare must be paid for, and provided by doctors and other workers, it can never be a right.
I'll go a step further in my disagreement, and say that everyone should pay a fixed amount, or ideally, just for what they use if it can be efficiently gauged: and net tax recipients shouldn't get to vote.
I'd personally like it to be taught, but don't feel I should be imposing my will on others. Schools should be privatized, and each school should be able to decide if it will teach "intelligent design" or not, and parents can decide based on curriculum and other factors (cost, college admissions, extracurriculars) which schools they want their children to attend.
I'm not sure of the relevance of the question. I think marriage is important, but I don't know that it's necessary, and I believe the state should be kept out of it. It should consist of a contract, and whatever religious ceremony the couple (or group!) wants to have, if they can find a church that will do it: and no church should be compelled to perform any marriage it does not wish to.
Two questions in one, which is confusing. I interpreted it to be the more focused question "Sometimes it's necessary to strike first in a war" and I generally disagree with that. If your enemy has already done something aggressive to you, then you're not striking first: and if not, then why are you attacking a peaceable state? As to the statement, "Sometimes war is necessary", I would rank it "Agree (5)": avoid if possible, but if not, "Give 'em hell." This doesn't necessarily mean wait until someone's actually nuked one of your cities or destroyed a battleship: clear aggressive intent is enough to begin a war (e.g. if we'd seen Japan's fleet heading toward Pearl Harbor unannounced, that would be easily sufficient to start fighting), just as in individual self-defense.
Pretty weaselly question. Should one be loyal to one's country? Yes, to a point. Do I want countries to go away into one new world order? No: I think countries have important distinctions that should be preserved. Should people always support their government? No: governments, like people, should be judged on their actions. Should it be illegal to speak badly of your country? Never. Sometimes revolution may be required to overthrow a despotic government. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Free speech and property rights prohibit such interference. Want to present "balanced" coverage? Buy the station, or start your own.
See above. It is a good if industries self-regulate, e.g., by labeling games, and it is in their interest to do so (think parents deciding which games to buy or allow their children to buy).
Also a bit tricky. How else are you going to have peace talks if you don't meet with your enemies? It never makes us appear weak to meet, but it does to bow to foreign tyrants, or to continually go to them hat in hand to ask for small concessions while paying them huge amounts of taxpayer money as bribes, and then have them turn around and stab us in the back. "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
We pay for a military so that it can be used to promote our interest: protecting our oil supply is in our interest. "National crisis" is pretty broad, though: if America is threatened directly, of course our military should respond.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
I don't care. Government shouldn't be worried about a person's religion, nor should other people, except insofar as a Christian can try by example and judicious communication try to lead others to Christ ("Preach the Gospel at all times; when necessary, use words").
It only becomes government's responsibility when one person's pollution overflows to, affects, or infringes on another person's property: a government has the responsibility to stop such aggression, and ensure the aggressor compensates the aggrieved party for the damages.
Government shouldn't be involved in marriage (see above), gay or straight. Personally I don't think gay marriage has validity, but as a private ceremony and contract, it would be none of my business.
Again, goes to free speech. There may be some point where it's inciting to violence, but I'd be inclined to give a lot of latitude: people are responsible for their own actions.
As this would require exercising force against productive citizens to redistribute their income—essentially armed robbery—it is not a legitimate function of government.
This depends on what moral behavior is included. Government should stop force and fraud, and robbery and assault are certainly immoral. But if an action is not harming anyone, then government has no business stopping it.
First, non-citizens in many countries may be legally entitled to work. If this implies illegal aliens, however, they have violated national borders and trespassed, and will likely commit other crimes (identity theft) and violations while present illegally, while being a drain on the taxpayers in terms of costs of education, hospitalization, and use of services (even things like wear on roads). Immigration policy should benefit the citizens of a state, and no worker should be violating labor laws (although many, like minimum wage, should be repealed). "It's just obvious that you can't have free immigration and a welfare state."
This is a practical consideration, because it's expensive to print government documents in multiple languages—or to have an illegal alien hit your car and not speak English. People should be able to speak their chosen language at home, but government shouldn't cater to them.
I'm not sure what this question is getting at. Of course, a rising tide lifts all boats, but does this mean anything, including, say, selling the poor to foreign countries as slaves? But as long as no force is involved, I'd have to agree: prosperity and advanced technology tends to help everyone.
Both are true to a point, but shouldn't matter politically.
Once they've done their time (or been rehabilitated, if you believe that), they should have as much right to vote as anyone else—more, in fact, than net recipients of taxpayer funding. (They should have to pay for their incarceration, too, possibly before getting their franchise back.)
Not that important to me, but seems no worse than alcohol, and I support freedom for people in their private pursuits.
The state should change the channel or find a good book. :)
I'm not inclined to waste a lot of time and effort determining their motivation, because their acts are certainly evil, but it's certainly important for the appropriate government intelligence to understand what our enemies are thinking.
Of course. Taxes should pay for what we voluntarily use, and for minimal government. No redistribution, and waste on your own dime.
Unless I oppressed someone directly, in which case they can bring legal action against me, I should not be compelled to give them anything.
Seditious acts may be wrong (depending on the leader's actions). Questioning a leader is never wrong; dissent is sometimes very patriotic.
Wouldn't have helped: the problem was government control over the money supply.
Define "fair". It depends how people are making money: if there's no force or fraud involved, then it's fair; if they're robbing banks, not so much.
Hasn't worked so well so far. The Middle East, for example, seems to benefit from powerful autocracies and sufficiently high tensions all around that everybody's scared to launch an attack.
They do have an interest in keeping them from dependent children, but otherwise, they should not regulate or tax such products.
See answer to first question.
We should all be on a level playing field, on the other hand, if other countries have a comparative advantage in producing something, then the savings benefit consumers.
What sort of equality? More government regulation, disagree; less regulation, government out of marriage, all marriages are contracts between consenting adults, agree.
For murder, certainly, and possibly some violent crimes. For political crimes, probably not, unless those crimes forseeably lead to men dying. Otherwise, reparations are more important.
We should be at the forefront of defense research, and be prepared to defend our shores and possibly help our allies, but we don't need to be fighting expensive foreign wars. Foreign wars not directly affecting the security of the United States (e.g. they attacked us first) should be supported by donations and attended by volunteers only (including our military if they can be spared from defense and Congress agrees with the side they wish to join: it would be ridiculous to have our military fighting on both sides of a conflict).
That's how we went from caves, clubs, and wood fires to skyscrapers, satellites, and fiber optics.
Some cultures deserve the appellation, and we have freedom of speech to deliver it when necessary, or even when not.
See above.
Freedom of speech again, as long as they're not doing violence upon others.
We've never seen unrestrained capitalism, but generally it's government that props up monopolies, primarily through government contracts.
It is sometimes, but it's not a political problem, and some authority doesn't deserve respect.
What is meant by "too powerful"? Consider their actions, not their size. Again, it's government that builds up giant corporations, not the market.
Morality is fine: government should only get involved if the individual exerts force or fraud against others.
States should not set price floors or ceilings; minimum wage contributes to unemployment and higher prices.
Question is extremely loaded. If an individual doesn't want to invest in stocks, they should be free to keep their savings in a bank or under their mattress; realistically, investing in less risky securities is a good idea as retirement approaches, eventually concentrating in low-risk bonds or money market funds. The government has no mystical way of creating a retirement income from the money it takes from workers: it too must invest to grow it, and thus risks loss. Government cannot provide guaranteed income without robbing other workers or the next generation. Far better to let individuals keep their money, and invest it as they choose.
Nobody is guaranteed freedom from offense. Of course, government should not be funding such art, or indeed any art at all.