You forgot slavery.

I believe he was just kidding around.

@ OP: As a believer in National Socialism as a political philosophy, I am pro euthanasia to civilian (non-veteran) burdens to the state.

Questions like this usually lead me to the contemplation of the morality of making decisions for other people. So, I personally think that an act is guaranteed "immoral" if its something done without the object's consent.

But, really, isn't it that every single thing we do has an effect on someone or something else, without their consent? With that said, should we consider small things to be ignorable, but larger, more noticeable things to be significant?

I never really come to a conclusion with these thoughts...

I didn't know that the Third Reich's policies regarding mandatory euthanasia was a staple-part of National Socialism, I guess rounding up political opponents is too just because that's what they did.

Well, I wouldn't really call it a staple-part, but it was certainly a philosophy of theirs that was put into practice. I agree with a state doing away with its political opponents as well.

I don't agree with what he's saying but labeling any national socialists as nazis is a very close minded thing to do. Not saying you did that but I don't like where this is going.

If you say so. I want the majority of convicted criminals doing hard labour but it isn't going to happen.


I wasn't, but it's pretty clear that he's supporting Third Reich national socialism, the British National Socialist party - to my knowledege - don't announce such intentions in manifestos.

The problem with this statement is that we don't need much, and what little we do need can easily be met by the labor of a small portion of our population. The real question should be, "Do the WANTS of the many outweigh the needs of the few?"

A classic example for that is cotton and slavery. We've obviously made a decision on that one.

We had slaves because they were cheap labor, and now we turn to third world countries for our cheap labor. Luckily, a horde of third world farmers can't compete with industrial farm equipment. The U.S. is still cotton king.

For the record: My beliefs are my own personal interpretations of the National Socialism of the Third Reich. I typically hate most NS movements, and there were things I didn't agree with in the TR.

But again: Yay for state enacted euthanasia programs.

A heads-up to you my right wing friend; it's not the fellas in the old folks homes who are ruining your state, neither is it the poor saps in the nuthouse. It's the corporate bankers and financial big wigs of your country, and possibly these same people in other countries. If anyone is to be euthanized, it's them.

If there's one good thing about corporations running our government, it's that even they don't want a bad economy. World War III would hurt our economy too much to be worth fighting, and happy people don't overthrow the government/kill bankers.

Corporate management isn't the devil. It's just not ideal...

There are ways to make money off an unstable/failing economy, so it can be in their interest to manipulate this. However, I was just proving a point; euthanizing "civil burdens" who probably take less of a toll on the economy than me not shutting off the tap while I brush my teeth, won't solve any problems.

The needs of the many.

There are too many and the need too much>
This isnt even factoring in wants.

There are simply too many people.
There is only so much matter here on our little marble.
Thererfore, the needs of the many can never trully be met.
Most of the needs of most people is probably the best you'll get.
But if a few can get more, then many will get less.
Thats what usually happens, anyway.

I know we read and see and hear that the needs of the many outweigh the wants of a few.
But thats romance.
Honor and greatness written on paper/filmed/crooned about.
To make the heart feel something.
To make us feel that we would align ourselves with greatness.
Seeming greatness in bittersweet contrast of the reality that this is not the way things are.

But there is hope.
Even the few fall sometimes.
So some of the many can become the new few.
For a time.

That's true. The world has moved away from that perspective for a reason. Plus, the collateral damage can be huge.

Take people like Temple Grandin and Bram Cohen. They're both autistic, and their work defines large sections of our economy. Everything and everyone can have their purpose, if you give them a chance.

Your right it's not, it's mindlessly cruel and pointless. Combined with statements like "I agree with a state doing away with its political opponents as well." you're basically saying you want to be ruled by an un-accountable government which doesn't actually have a duty-of-care to it's citizens. Why don't we just reduce the population of the Earth to managable levels and have a One-World-Government for the full efficiency package... and isn't the idea of "removing burdens to the state" just the idea of saving money, resources and such? Unethical persuit of maximum efficiency, sounds a lot like some sci-fi evil Mega-Corporation to me than a government.

Most of our corporate profit is in retail. While pretty much every corporation has lobbyists, I'd think that there's more of them supporting places that need a good economy.

In my imagined militaristic state, the true citizens would be soldiers and veterans and would be protected by the law. Much like you see throughout history, actually. Also, the ideal method is to promote the need to self-euthanize in certain situations rather than enforce it, while also promoting positive eugenics. When these things can't be done properly, then enforced euthanasia and negative eugenics would apply. Also, why should a government harbor opponents?

While military rule has dominated through history, it's always followed by technological stagnation.

In today's world, technological stagnation is a death sentence. That wasn't the case just a few centuries ago.

Because governments are responsible to their citizenry, the whole socialism part of national socialism you see; otherwise you're just being held at gunpoint. And true citizens soldiers? Are these professional or conscripts? Either way is irrelevant really, who to spend years training to be a scientist or a doctor when you go just join the army and be valued as a real person.

The society you just described needs a constant war going on to exist. And a government should harbor opponents because A. not everyone agrees with it (this is just not possible with any government) B. a strong opposition keeps it from doing stupid [censored] based on the mindset of "Oh nobody's gonna question this crap anyway and we DO have all this spare money and resources just LYING around. Heck let's grow a pair and build that giant gorilla statue made of solid gold!" (I'm not being literal here but you get the point) What you basically just described is a dictatorship. And don't think I'm the "The people can govern themselves perfectly well" type of guy (I'm a stout believer in constitutional monarchy), but this system is the basis of any Communist or Fascist dictatorship.

No political ideology is bulletproof. Sooner or later, the people will revolt, even if you treat them fair. It's human nature.

Living in your ideal system sounds absolutely miserable. So tell us again why anyone but the already rich and powerful would want it?

More or less my view on infant baptism.

Now this is very interesting... Every action has a consequence, as they say. I'd say that the more significant the ramifications of an action is, the more attention should be concentrated on it to create awareness of it. And why? Because something of a great area of effect should be of the concern to everyone affected, just seems like... the most respectful alternative. Well, within a human context.

Yes, but citizenry is defined differently in every scenario. In ancient Athens a citizen was an Athenian, with both parents born in Athens, male, land owner, and military service was mandatory. Similar to the beginnings of America. Scientists and doctors would be government officials which would just be a division of the military, since it's a militaristic state. Obviously, veterans and soldiers would be held as heroes, so they would have more benefits. The socialism part only applies to the actual defined citizenry.

There have never been any shortage of wars. And yes, it can lead to a dictatorship, but Fascism is what they had in Italy.


I'm sorry. And because its good?