I rather like the question. Granted, it captures sentiment rather than anything specific, but it does represent a conservative viewpoint towards rebellious youth rather well, and the wording is fairly neutral, as opposed to say 'selling out', or talk of childish hippies or the like.
I voted strongly disagree, and I hope my answer never changes. Accepting what is established just because it is established is a common enough phenomenon, but the very concept disgusts me.
The one-party state question did initially bug me, but I suppose the point is that by agreeing you would be accepting that arguments that occur in democracies are something that it would be advantageous to avoid. Arguments, in one form or another, are the very fabric of a democracy, and autocracy is certainly not better off without them. I think the wording is done as it is because a more bare-faced endorsement of despotism would not attract any votes at all, at least in most of the developed world.