There have never been shortage of wars because of systems like these. Now I'm not saying war is necessarily bad, but pointless war just to keep such a system going seems... well, pointless. As for your Italy scenario; look how that turned out.

From what I understand infant Baptism is just the declaration of the parents to raise their child to be a Christian, Confirmation is the actual ceremony in which the person vows to live their life as a Christian and this is totally up to them and is decided at an age where they can more or less think for themselves. This being said, this vow is made around 90% of the time since by then, the person has just kind of accepted it, meaning they are massively biased in favor of Confirmation.


No I'm afraid the rich and powerful men of today would much prefer a more or less peaceful world with blissfully stupid citizens, of course with the occasional conflict in some third-world country to you know...keep the arms industry going.

I know that, but raising a child religiously is, the way I see it, biased and an infraction against the integrity of the individual the child will become. If anything, religion should only be brought into child-care/parenting process at the initiative of the child; when the age of asking about such things occur.

Why is it good? What benefits does it afford the people under its flag?

I disagree.

I was raised in the Christian religion (Anglican to be specific), that was my parent's call. Even though I was devou,t I had my doubts starting at my teen years. Pretty much everyone has the same period in their life where they question the status quo. I choose to remain in the faith afterwards, but even if you're not raised in Religion at all, you will still go through the same teen angst, it's natural.

Well, it affords to the people who serve it well, to be clear. Things such as most any government can grant, such as security, health, prosperity, careers, training, education, food, clothing, shelter, living space, a shot at honor, a sense of pride, an equal opportunity at marriage, the promotion of family... etc, except all on a much grander scale. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Not sure how doing off with old folks and the mentally challenged, while constantly waging war will accomplish any of this (except the honor and pride, if you can be proud of killing the defenseless). Now don't get me wrong here, a system like this has good parts, particularly patriotism. I for one consider myself a Hungarian patriot revisionist; I would love to see more emphasis on promoting the funding of museums and infrastructure, education about our history and culture encouraged more in schools etc. but I would hate to see my country under the tyranny of either Communism or Fascism as both have already done massive damage, unfortunately. PS; mods, I'm not talking politics here, just history.

Indeed, but I am not speaking about teen angst, issues of keeping faith, uncertainty and such. I simply feel that religion, which is very important to many, one way or the other, is something each and every individual should determine for themselves, regardless of parents, friends, authority figures and society as a whole.

Don't get me wrong though, there's nothing inherently wrong in having a belief of some kind. How you apply it to your own life is your business, not mine. Which is also my point.

These are ideals not all share. It doesn't sound very flexible, it doesn't seem to give some leeway for... outsiders in such a system.
Good point.

And what about the mild mentally challenged, IE, those with mild mental illness, but can function on their own?

What does? Nothing... That's also not the point. The idea is to have the best government possible. The outsiders get ousted.

Lol, since when has national socialism given two [censored] about outsiders? That's the whole point!


No, I don't think killing people just because of a condition they are born with is right. Period. And these people can actually often contribute. I was just watching a semi-documentary about autistic woman named Temple Grandin who came up with a way to make the slaughtering of livestock more humane and bearable for the animals.

So you want me out of the way or dead?

Don't misunderstand me now, I'm not offended... Simply posing a problem.

Yeah, my bad.

I think that the primary task of a government is to strengthen the country, take care of it's citizens, make the country as self-sufficient as possible and prevent ANY meddling by foreign companies and governments in the country (some of you may have guessed by now I'm piss mad at the European Union; a system built to allow strong and rich countries to leech off and manipulate small, weaker ones), everything else comes after. Now I while DO believe that the natives of every country should be given a "home-field advantage" of sorts, the country also owes attention and care to minorities, provided they contribute.

Add population control to that and you have almost my ideal society.

Lol, I just expanded the post, but pop. control is still not there, a self-sufficient country should already have natural limits to the size of it's population, and overload will result in a higher mortality rate until balance is restored.

That does sound good on paper, but on a global basis in practice, it's not happening.

Hmmmm, not in the current system. However, I think certain countries could achieve it. Of course the big ol' bastards (powerful countries that rely on weak ones) wouldn't let them and would do everything in their power to stop this. Unfortunately, in some countries such as India and China, this could not happen since the population already far exceeds the amount of people their area of land could possibly sustain. Also, the point of my idea is; screw the friggin global basis, it only has to work in your country if the rest of them want to be at the mercy of each other, let em'.

As far as India and China goes... Massive population relocation (which is, if not impossible, close it), extreme long term population control, or depopulation would seem to be the most viable options.

America would be the place to move to.

Where would you relocate them? The extreme long term pop. control would be very difficult since these are societies which traditionally have many children (I believe in China they do it until they have a boy, and in India children are like a retirement fund to ensure you are taken care of in your old age, since the government doesn't give a damn), but this COULD work however it would take a long time. I'm not sure what depopulation means however. To be honest though, I could not care less whether my system will ever come into play in these countries as I have no intention of ever living there. I know it may seem selfish but the idea is that countries keep the [censored] to themselves and don't bother each other unless it's an open declaration of war, or trade of goods (just simple trade of goods, not big companies moving into poor countries for cheap labor and to pollute the environment).

Depopulation; mass killings, genocide... Call it what you will. It's brutal and messy.

And countries keeping to themselves... that's a mentality I must agree with. Although, environmetally speaking, we all share some responsibilities to keep things... acceptable and tolerable.

1. Ssssss, I... I don't think that's the way to go man.

2. Indeed we do and that's why it pisses me off when I hear stuff such as a Canadian gold mining company moving into Romania where they pollute the rivers with friggin cyanide which is used in the process. All the while, Canadians (not the Canadian people, they are actually very nice, just the gov.) act the part of good guys and peace-preservers. I think that either A. the government of Canada (and other similar countries) should take responsibility for controlling their crazed, corporate, capitalist, money-grubbers or B. grow a pair and admit to being hypocrites so the world can treat them as such.
EDIT: once again dear mods, thank you for not closing down this thread, and I would like to restate I am not flaming or insulting any countries or political views, it's all philosophy.

Does this mean you're pro genocide for population control, but against it for political stability?

He just explained to me what he meant, and he presented this as a way of solving the population explosion problems in certain countries, he never said he agreed with it. I think...

I'm not saying I am supporting depolulation of the world, but it could do wonders for social issues. And of course the fact that this overpopulated world of ours which we drain for more resources than what it can almost give, would make sure that things would get a little more back on track, in a natural context. Deforestation wouldn't be as severe as the demand would lower drastically. The same goes for meat. And with a smaller world population, other resources which aren't renewable would take longer to be consumed.