Posts from RightValues / LeftValues

>Offshoring and outsourcing are necessary evils to improve production
A necessary evil is when a country has high taxes to provide welfare. The fact that businesses may move to offshore locations and outsource is a justification for a policy of partially closed borders as a necessary evil to stimulate the economy.
But it is not necessary, and only a harmful evil, when taxes are decent, and welfare is far below average, and the borders are closed. And the wolves are hungry, and the sheep are eaten.
Special zones where it is profitable to work or produce goods are not an evil at all; it is the merit of countries that have managed to create such conditions for themselves and benefit from them.

>I do not have any problem if other official languages are added or replace the already existing official language in my country
Well, if it's English, and if it's added as a second most important language, why not? But if it completely replaces English, then yes, I have "problems" with this, because language greatly influences the way of thinking, and I do not want to give up on this in that sense.
And if we are talking about some Tatar language, even if it is represented in the country by an entire people, I would not want it to be mandatory in the country, even as an addition, and not as a replacement (although it would be quite reasonable to make it the second language in the territory where it is common, perhaps it is still the case in the Kazan region).
I'm saying all this because there are many vectors of thinking in this issue, and it is difficult to express the answer in a simple agree-disagree, and it is unlikely to actually describe my position. And this is the case in many places.

>It is necessary to implement assemblies to ration our production to the consumers according to their needs
I couldn't understand the point of the question until I realized that it was about socialism vs. capitalism. Rationing production for the needs of consumers vs. increasing profits.
Answer: it is best to focus on the consumer, and high profits will become good feedback for you (but not the only one), and will also allow your production to make sense for everyone involved in it, because they need to eat.

>Nobody is by nature predisposed to criminality
Perhaps, the question is whether you believe that there are people who are more predisposed to crime by nature than others. Then I will answer that most likely no, well, maybe a very small number with some serious disorders in their heads.
But on the other hand, purely logically, "Everybody is by nature predisposed to criminality," and this is obvious. There is no law-abidingness in nature, because the law is largely a social construct. If you don't explain to a child that you can't take a candy from the store without paying, they will never figure it out on their own. And I answer based on this meaning, because otherwise, why not ask the question "Some people are by nature more predisposed to criminality" and avoid logical inconsistencies?

>School should mostly teach our values, traditions, and fundamental knowledge
What else could it be? Or should we not teach values?
Unless you can say that the level of fundamental knowledge is different for everyone. I believe that without understanding school electrodynamics or biology at the level of "how mushrooms reproduce," it will be somewhat difficult in life, to say the least, and for some, even the multiplication table is "I don't need all this math."
But somehow the question does not allow to distinguish how much fundamental knowledge there should be.

>All sciences, even chemistry and biology are not uncompromising and are conditioned by our society
Yes, but so what? The presence of subjectivity does not speak of the absence of objectivity.

>Minimal levels of salary should be ensured to make sure that a worker can live off their work
Ensure to make sure, yeah... Worker... their work, yeah... And I was wondering why I have to think for a long time about the meaning of some questions, now everything is clear.

>Environmental norms should be influenced by mass consumption and not from an authority
I don't understand how? Like, consumers will try to choose everything clean and environmentally friendly, and "dirty" goods and services will not be able to compete? Well, such a choice can only arise under the influence of propaganda, and this is also a means of control. And it is also necessary to control the reliability of information, how will the consumer know whether the factory pollutes or does not pollute the environment. Not to mention that everything is very complicated with public opinion, and some consider nuclear power plants to be a dirty source of energy, for example. Well, and they buy water without GMOs.

>We need to establish a monarchy to federate the people and preserve our sovereignty
Phew XD

>Dismissals of employees should be forbidden except if it is justified
I don't understand. Well, you shouldn't fire people on a whim, it's clear that there should be a justification, at least economic (staff reduction), what's the point?

>A good citizen is a patriot
Phew XD

>Transforming ecosystems durably to increase the quality of life of human beings is legitimate
No, let's live in caves.

>Activism in existing political organizations is not relevant to change society
I think the word "perestroika" gives a clear answer to this question, which will not be related to political beliefs.

>Reduction of waste should be done by reducing production
Some kind of slogan for the sake of a slogan. "To reduce greenhouse gases, let's all hold our breath." Seriously, how is it proposed to implement it? Suppose factories reduced production, and people are like, "Hey, we don't have enough!", prices soared, a crisis, and in the end, everyone came to their senses and started producing more again - and what?
We can talk about reusing resources. We can talk about waste-free and low-waste production. We can talk about reducing consumption. What does reducing production have to do with it - I don't understand what the author wants to convey.

>Loans contracted by the public sector (states, regions, communities) do not necessarily have to be repaid
Loans can be not repaid? What, is that how it was possible?!

>The labor market enslaves workers
What? XD

>The filing and storage of personal records should be delimited strictly and database cross-checking should be forbidden
Maybe it should be, but I don't understand the difference. Obviously, the question is about anonymity and privacy, but technically I don't understand what it is about (just in case, I will vote for it).

>“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”
XD
And in general, is it normal that in order to understand the context, you need to be familiar with a very specific author? Or should you answer based on the principle of "Yes, I am a feminist / no, I am not a feminist," regardless of what this particular phrase with an ambiguous meaning means and whether you agree with it?
It is wrong to say that women are in general worse than men in their nature, intelligence, or social impact. Something like that, if you want to say that being a woman (and not just a man) is a reason to be proud, and no slogans, only logically meaningful words. Is it really so difficult to compose such tests in this way?

>Nowadays employees are free to choose when signing a contract with their future employer
I'm tired.