Yes, labor unions are necessary to protect the rights of the workers. Labor unions protect workers against unsafe working condition, unfair wages, and other unreasonable situations. Without these labor unions, employers will not listen to the demands of a worker, but a group of workers is powerful to make necessary changes. To bargain with their employers is the purpose of labor unions, because they believe that changes are needed to be effective at work. Workers will continue to suffer without labor unions.
Physical punishment is the best way to teach anyone a lesson. Most kids learn their lessons the hard way, That means getting spanked. When kids grow up, They rarely receive the same treatment they experienced when still young. Hence, They stop learning and some of them fail miserably in life, Some even do drugs.
I do not suggest that all teenagers should get spanked. Only those who deserved to get spanked. I acknowledge that there are many teenagers who are successful in life without getting spanked as a teenager. The reason for this is that they have learned their lesson when they were kids, Hence, No need for spanking for these people.
Do you think that teenagers would rebel to their parents if they (teens) get spanked? Probably. But remember, The spanking isn't the main cause of that rebellious attitude because the teenager who gets spank shows already that bad attitude which needs to be corrected by spanking.
Small businesses are not competitors but retailers to big businesses. Competition does not exist in a free market because the big players dominate the entire industry not allowing small players to compete with them. The big bosses monopolize everything to the point that they alone dictate the price of a commodity without control of the government and concern with competition. Thus, free market is only controlled by big businesses.
Reform, not abolition, is the solution to the problems hounded by the welfare program. The concern about the the welfare program is that people might become too dependent to the government that they are already abusing it. Having said that, ending the welfare will not solve the problem. Absolute poverty will result to such abolition if ever. To avoid that scenario, a reform should rather be initiated to make the welfare program for efficient and avoid abuses. Strict observance and implementation of the distribution of welfare funds must be done to achieve the reform needed.
Guided with morality, the Church should partially influence the state. With respect to the separation of church and state, I believe that the former must influence the latter in its decisions involving morality issues. Church should be part on discussions about death penalty, abortion, and others, because those issues involve life. The state cannot be all knowing that it would disregard other institutions that serve as buffer against any abuses. I am not saying however, that the church should make the decision, but it should be allowed to influence the state.
The right to information by the people is extremely important in a democracy, but it is not absolute. Knowing government transaction is essential to the exercise of our democratic rights; it allows us to scrutinize the actions taken by the government whether or not abuses are made. However, this right has limitations especially when national security is at stake. For instance, a secret must be kept from the people as that particular information might endanger the lives of many. Especially terrorist groups who want vital secrets in the operation of the government so that they would be able to penetrate security measures. Undoubtedly, the right to information does not outweigh national security.
Nothing has to be released "Do you think more footage of the Pentagon on 9/11 should be released?" This is a kind of begging the question fallacy. Begging the question means that a statement is formulated then one of its premises assume the truth of the statement. In the question above, it assumes that there are still unreleased footage of the 9/11 attack. But of course, no where in the statement the assumption can be proven, it just purely assumes that there are really videos that were not released.
The begging the question fallacy is related to the conspiracy theory fallacy. In the conspiracy theory, a person made a conclusion then defend it by saying that his conclusion cannot be disproved because the truth is being hidden. Both the two fallacies are the most commonly used defense by those who believe that the truth about the 9/11 is being covered and there was a conspiracy.
It's the burden of those who believe that there was a conspiracy to prove that there was indeed such thing, not the government to prove that there was none. Relying on mere possibility that there was a conspiracy is another kind of fallacy called "appeal to possibility". Not because it is possible that it is true. Evidence must be presented to prove a conspiracy, not absence of it.
The church just receiving not giving. It receives a lot of donations from people, but in turn it does not really contribute to the community practically. Taxing the church would allow us the government to collect more than billions of dollars that can be used to help many poor people. But of course, the priests want all the money all by themselves. What a selfish attitude! Even interfering with the state, violatating the separation of church and state.
In the market, oil deregulation helps the economy by encouraging new players and setting proper prices. If oil is regulated by the government, new oil players will not emerge, thus no competition. In Economics, competition is healthy to the economy as it helps lower the prices of commodities. Two oil businesses in same location want more customers, lowering the price of their products is one way to attract customers. Consequently, the result is beneficial to the economy of a country as prices are lowered and people are satisfied.
Right to free speech does not depend upon the feelings of others. What people say may create consequences. Feelings may get hurt. However, Whether people get hurt is there problem. Our freedom of speech should not be limited just because people may get hurt.
Animosity or even a fist fight may occur. But that is beside the point. Cultural hindrance should not exist to limit our freedom.