I think this is a problem which, over time will take care of itself. I remember some biology scenario where a group of bunnies moved onto an island during a cold winter when the lake froze and got isolated there. They multiplied like crazy (being bunnies), until another cold winter came and a group of wolves moved onto the island. The wolves immediately chowed down and soon very few bunnies were left; the wolves started dying of starvation, and due to less wolves the bunnies began to multiply, so now there was more for the wolves to eat. Then the wolves ate most of the bunnies again and the cycle restarted. I think this is basically what's happening here, only at a much slower rate; the human pop. will decrease and natural resources will replenish themselves (those that can anyway), then the pop. will go up and etc. etc.
EDIT; whoa man, we're running out of posts here man, we got like 50 posts left. I think a philosophy thread should be started or something similar.

Of course, I fully agree with you, but why not also agree that a government of ultimate good towards its own citizens (those it likes) shouldn't employ the same methods on its internal enemies to better itself (also population control)?

Depopulation, the way I see it, is a last resort. The kind of thing that should only be done after a combination of:

1. A long contemplation of whether it would be of any help.
2. That the current situation is extremely dire; worldwide starvation, dehydration and so on.
I'm probably a bit of an anarchist so... A transparent, peaceful democracy guided by reason would be something for me. There need to be some laws to keep order but it should also promote the individual, not just the community.

Yeah...yeah that right there is the biggest problem I have with this. Also I doubt that internal enemies are so great in number they threaten the risk of overpopulation (If they do it means the government svcks. Bad.). Also, there is a huge difference between internal enemies of a state and internal enemies of a government, the government is not the state itself.

Constitutional monarchy FTW!!!!

Not at first, but ultimately they become one and the same with NS.

Also, my entire philosophy is based on the belief that state is above the individual. That is, of course, unless the individual is in an exalted position of the state. There were plenty of exalted heroes in the TR who experienced great benefits and honors. Mothers of citizens were held especially high.

So...the needs of the many are above the needs of the few...but with exceptions for mothers? Also, I don't understand what you mean by "Not at first, but ultimately they become one and the same with NS".

Lol... no not with the exceptions of mothers... I'm saying it isn't communism, nor pure socialism. There are still classes, but steps were taken to weaken the social distinctions between classes, such as the Strength through Joy movement. They still had war heroes, civil heroes, and people of high standing, held in high regard. Everything was more based on honor than on currency. Farming and manual labor were considered noble professions and were praised highly.

What I meant by 'Not at first...' was that yes, government and state aren't the same thing, at first. Ultimately, they become the same thing with national socialism.

Out of curiosity, which classes had low social standings?

I agree. Someone very dear to my heart has a mild mental condition.

None, really. None that were ideal citizens. Although party members probably had a nice preference.

We have enough problems with companies destroying our land then to deal with companies in Romania.

As well since companies are considered individuals, t's the Rumanian governments job to stop the "Canadian" company from wrecking your land. Not a Canadian issue.

And we are pretty good guys, we've been in most every peace keeping mission since the 1950's, and stayed out of stupid and unjustified wars, like Iraq.

I thought good guys fight the bad guys... while the ones who stand idly by doing nothing are often considered just as bad as the offenders. That's at least what the common mentality is.

This is interesting. So a company, for example a Canadian one, does not need to practice caution of what it does outside of Canada, because the duty to protect where ever this company is, is the duty of, for example, Romania where the Canadian company settled down?

Seems a bit... like a case of severe lack of responsibility. Although, it's kind of cunning as well, instead of polluting their own country, they take their crap to someone else. Like borrowing your neighbor's phone for an expensive long distance call.

1. Canada, to my knowledge is rather strict about how companies affect the environment, which is a good thing.

2. I'm not Romanian, I was just using an example, but I think huge companies should not be that independent from the government; they should be kept in check by the government, not vica versa. But then again, it's mostly the Romanian government's job in this case, since Canada doesn't have a command economy.

3. I really don't get the point of "peace keeping missions", for example, a government of a country may claim to restore democracy and do peace keeping missions, then installs a puppet government who serves them. I really don't think countries should get involved in each others' peace keeping, that's the responsibility of the respective country. Moreover, it rarely solves anything and the situation reverts as soon as the foreign soldiers leave. All that happens is some peacekeepers are killed for no reason. But yeah, overall you're nice guys, having lived here for five years, I can't argue with that.

Yes Sadist, that is exactly the idea here, thank you for phrasing that so well.

Bullying, where a single individual is singled out by say three individuals, and three others stand on the sideline, is a situation where I would agree with the mentality you speak of. But now, we're talking of interaction between nations, and in those situations, things aren't really black and white. Sure, some may be victimized and some may be demonized in the media...

But look at the United States; peacekeepers with an attitude, at least from my perspective. Yet it's the "terrorists" in the Middle-east we're all fighting. It's a very complicated situation, a very tender one, and dropping by from out of nowhere can be very deconstructive rather than productive.

Smart guys stay the [censored] out of it and become as self-sufficient as possible.


Those terrorists are terrorists for a reason. You can damn well bet they don't want to blow themselves up for want of having nothing better to do all day.

I'm not saying they aren't, but in the Middle-east, a lot of people are lumped together, some which shouldn't be considered the same as others. I should probably have phrased myself differently. The Middle-east is not solely populated by terrorists, despite whatever scare tactics are used.

Or it's like they have permission from the Romanian government to mine their and if the local government had a problem with any of the companies practice it could intervene. There's nothing cunning about it, it's called private enterprises exist - and aren't soley under the control of the government that they originated in. It's like the Romanian government sold them the contract and sanctioned them to mine in the area and were either oblivious or un-caring to the environmental effects.

Really what you're suggesting is a conspiracy that the mining company was motivated to mine in Romanian purely because it didn't want to spoil Canada's natural beauty; at-least that's if you interperate your anology.

By that logic is British government responsible for the actions of BP? Because it's a huge, mutlinational corporation that has it's headquarters in the UK. I very much enjoyed Obama making sure to refering to the company as British Petroleum too, it's not like they didn't formally rename themselves just "BP" in 2001 or anything.

Your both blaming the Canadian government because an entirely free enterprise is operating unethically in a country in-which they have no juristication?

The local governments DID protest and protests were organized, petitions signed etc. yet it didn't have much effect. Now this would all be fine, if they didn't try to sell a nice-guy image of themselves, which they do (thus they are hypocrites). And like I said, the Canadian government knew about this and if they had a command economy then they would be able to intervene. Of course for them it's a win-win situation because the way they see it; the company isn't going to pollute Canada right? They're gonna ruin some poor saps' country instead, yet Canadians get the benefit. Hurray!

The concept of "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" works fine when one is in the majority.
When one is a member of the minority, then it's another story.
Most of the time, the world works on a "do unto others before they do unto you " mentality, instead of working together as a community.

Local government's protested? I don't know how things roll on your continent but local councils aren't as powerful in Europe, nor do citzens protests in Romanian have any responsibilty with the Canadian government. Ultimately that type of situation would lay with the Romanian government itself and if they chose not to intervene then that's what happens, popular resistance in Romania is nothing to do with the Canadian government, it's the responsiblity of the Romanian government to respond.

"If they had a command economy" well they don't, they have a free market economy. Your asking for the Canadian government to intervene in a private nation and private company, how does one link a company and a country anyway? Because the company was founded there, because there headquarters is there, because the people who run it are Canadian? Either way, unless it's a nationalised industry the Canadian government has no authority. And Canadians get all the benefit? If it's in Romania then the labours will be local right? And all of the produce there gets shipped back to Cananda? Because it's a Canadian company right and only trades with it's supposed nationality.

Canadians DO benefit from this. However, you're right it's primarily the company's fault and the Romanian gov's fault. Still my original point here was that countries letting large, foreign companies do whatever they want is a stupid decision (though you have to read pretty far back in this thread to see this)

depends on the needs and the many

if the needs are not actually needs (u don't need a TV and a car ...etc) then sacrificing even one person is wrong and will lead to the people that are willing to do such a thing's destruction, example: well..... every mega nation on the planet that risks war to get more influence, that's why no nation lasts that long ...ever

and the many should be worth the sacrifice, if u lose a soldier to win an oil drill that's bad, if u lose a soldier to win ur people's freedom for their way of life then that's worth it.

and stuff like that .....