[Daktoria]

I'm actually going to take your above post as a concession, Daktoria, because you are asking redundant questions. I've already explained to you exactly how it reaches the point of being social democracy, and this is not the first time I've done so. I'm not skipping any steps, and you are being disingenuous.

I'm completely relaxed, so I really don't know what you're on about. If anything, you are the only one that's panicking because you are seemingly unable to ruffle me.

That doesn't explain how classic liberalism transforms into progressivism/state capitalism though. It only describes the "too big to fail" scenario without explaining how we get there.

The reason progressivism arrives is because worker-consumers are idiots. They only want cheap goods, they don't want to think about income:expenditure or cost:benefit ratios, and they're willing to fuck like rabbits out of boredom to drive the labor supply out of control.

You never address this primitivism, and it never seems apparent why.

That form of you actually makes more sense to me than the charade that liberal-capitalism usually puts up around itself, since nihilistic individualism is all about extermination on a collective level anyway.

When it comes to willingness to kill though, I really doubt that you can out-do me on that.

I do find it interesting how you retreated into sentimentality in an attempt to avoid admitting that I had thrashed you though.

I don't believe you understand. It's not a willingness to kill so much as a willingness to delete. Neither gore, pain, nor destruction are part of it. It's just about removing people from the picture in order to remove stimulus. Heck, if I could transform society into a mindless collective that believed itself to be happy from a group identity everyone could get lost within, that'd be a step in a favorable direction.

My feelings don't like to be stimulated because they get aggravated very easily. It's... been a very long time since I could play with someone without working.

Also, I honestly don't believe you thrashed me. Your statements are very circular (and I feel that I did ruffle you), so I was trying to be nice.

Those sort of tactics may work in the South of the USA where you can pat Ulster-Scot women on the head and tell them that you are going to viciously gouge their children by ripping out all the state infrastructure and importing crowds of Mexican immigrants in the nicest and sweetest voice possible, but it won't work out here in Europe, especially not after 2008. And definitely never in East Asia.

I think I've explained before how open borders are not (necessarily) classically liberal. In any case, the simple reason is they obligate citizen-taxpayers to adhere to and provide for a rule of law which accommodates free riders.

As for the debating tactic, it wasn't one.

Say we had an organic folk state. What would we do for fun in it?

[Rei Murasame]

That doesn't explain how classic liberalism transforms into progressivism/state capitalism though. It only describes the "too big to fail" scenario without explaining how we get there.

I'm not going to spoonfeed you this, just ask one of the socialists to tell you what 'hybridisation' is, they are actually correct on that issue.

I've talked about this 10,000 times before.

The reason progressivism arrives is because worker-consumers are idiots.

Welcome to reality. Now what are you doing to do about it?

You never address this primitivism

Because it pretty much goes unsaid, doesn't it? We have a saying in the IT industry, "Assume they are all idiots". If you build a system with massive gaping holes in it, people are going to do things that you don't want them to do, and they will not learn to avoid them, because every new user will fall into the hole about fifty-thousand times before even informing anyone that the hole is there, much less attempting to avoid it.

But you know all this, you just like profiting off the stupidity of the general population, which is why we can't put liberals in charge of anything, because they don't think like a mother would.

Also, I honestly don't believe you thrashed me. Your statements are very circular (and I feel that I did ruffle you), so I was trying to be nice.

Nope, you're just trying to get me to back off, but I am going to keep on pushing because I think that people that are actually watching this thread, and because I want to drive my point home absolutely.

I think I've explained before how open borders are not (necessarily) classically liberal.

And I think I called bullshit on that point by pointing to the real-life evidence to the contrary.

Say we had an organic folk state. What would we do for fun in it?

This is you attempting to get away from the central topic which is that you want to abolish the instruments that maintain ethnic groups because you are a libertarian and a nihilist, and like the social democrats you want to "destroy the whole world", as Dave would phrase it.

You keep trying to divorce your position from that of the 'neoconservatives' and social democrats, but in fact they are all merely what happens when people like you get mugged by history.

[starman2003]

Hitler was quite worker-friendly actually, both in policies and rhetoric.

Rhetoric, yes. But his policies emphasized the power of the State, for which the individual, especially if he wasn't very bright, had to sacrifice. As I said before, workers in the reich had a standard of living not much above subsistence. Even though, under Hitler, many more had jobs, their pay actually shrank. Strikes were forbidden, collective bargaining was gone, and the State decided where they could work.

...your position seems to actually be against the people completely...

The whole raison d'etre of an authoritarian regime is to be able to implement policies which, however vital, are unpopular. It is precisely because the bulk of people are dumb and irresponsible that authoritarianism (rule by an elite few) is necessary and democracy doesn't work. Although the policies of an authoritarian regime (e.g. solving environmental problems) are ultimately in everyone's best interest, the bulk of people will have to be put in their place--harshly if need be--to get essential things done. What should matter most is not catering to the petty whims of average dopes but great common goals envisioned by an elite.

[Tribbles]

While I disagree with the "people are stupid" - thing that far to often is being expressed by stupid people with rich parents (or something like that, I am not sure exactly what it is that sparks such thinking, when history shows that it is the leadership that screws stuff up), I agree that a green-turn towards ecological sustainability might need a high level of authoritarianism. It will have to be a close collaboration between environmentalist agencies, and a strong state. In such a project, it might actually help that many labor-unions are quite red. Leftist tendencies mean that they are willing to sacrifice more of the liberal rights such as private transport, without screaming out about "Freedom" and all the buorgoiuse (Aaargh, I hate the word, impossible to spell. Damn French!) stuff, so a close friendship between labor-unions and environmentalist organizations can be sustained under the condition that the green turn does not happen on expense of labor-rights

These thoughts might be seen as quite leftist - even though its classic corporatism with a touch of green - but it annoys me that the socialists are so fluid and unclear in their thinking on these matters.

[Daktoria]

I'm not going to spoonfeed you this, just ask one of the socialists to tell you what 'hybridisation' is, they are actually correct on that issue.

I've talked about this 10,000 times before.

Well I read through that and... it wasn't very enlightening. It's the typical blaming of class struggle onto industrialization of science which supposedly divides society from culture since industrialization disintegrates history.

That's all garbage because it doesn't explain how industrialization starts. It doesn't address why worker-consumers forsaken their exploratory interests in the first place from exploring industry's seeds.

Welcome to reality. Now what are you doing to do about it?

Publicly speaking, nothing. It's not my obligation or identity to live through other people. I'm interested in RELATING WITH people, not serving people or having people serve me.

Privately speaking, I would choose on a personal level whose development to support and whose support to develop with. Some people have potential, some people don't. A centrally planned economy dooms people who have potential from having resources sucked away from them towards those who do not. This happens because socially speaking, POTENTIAL ITSELF is a matter of CHARACTER JUDGMENT, yet centrally planned economies DISALLOW members of society to JUDGE CHARACTER on an internal mental level.

Without this internal mental level, there's no need to even recognize that society exists.

Because it pretty much goes unsaid, doesn't it? We have a saying in the IT industry, "Assume they are all idiots". If you build a system with massive gaping holes in it, people are going to do things that you don't want them to do, and they will not learn to avoid them, because every new user will fall into the hole about fifty-thousand times before even informing anyone that the hole is there, much less attempting to avoid it.

But you know all this, you just like profiting off the stupidity of the general population, which is why we can't put liberals in charge of anything, because they don't think like a mother would.

Rei, assuming people are idiots is what universalism is about. Case in point:

You always make me step back into political-speak because you make sure to read the wrong meaning of a word every time I don't.

Those wrong meanings are the massive gaping holes in your system.

Likewise, no, profiting off stupidity if a very frustrating process. Over the short run, yea, it's worthwhile because they're idiots. These are people who forsakened their potential because they chose to live practically rather than live meaningfully.

However, converting idiot bore profits to meaningful livelihood is a very tumultuous process. It just isn't fun. It's more relatable to scan the general population, find people who are openminded, and spend time with them on an ad hoc basis.

Nope, you're just trying to get me to back off, but I am going to keep on pushing because I think that people that are actually watching this thread, and because I want to drive my point home absolutely.

Honestly, most people don't watch each other's threads Rei. It's the internet. Even in real life, people are rather narcissistic. They want to be admired without admiring others.

That's the whole problem of hierarchy. Everyone aspires to be on top, so to have genuine relationships, the desire for that has to be destroyed.

And I think I called bullshit on that point by pointing to the real-life evidence to the contrary.

What you point to are non-classically liberal practices.

This is you attempting to get away from the central topic which is that you want to abolish the instruments that maintain ethnic groups because you are a libertarian and a nihilist, and like the social democrats you want to "destroy the whole world", as Dave would phrase it.

You keep trying to divorce your position from that of the 'neoconservatives' and social democrats, but in fact they are all merely what happens when people like you get mugged by history.

Rei, this is me trying to embrace your world with open arms. Don't tell me it's either you or neocons and soc dems. That convinces me I'm just choosing between the lesser of two evils.

If that's the case, then the best thing to do would be to never choose at all. Show me why your world is good, meaningful, enjoyable. I don't have any interest in keeping people alive just so they can be tortured and enslaved.

[Rei Murasame]

That's all garbage because it doesn't explain how industrialization starts. It doesn't address why worker-consumers forsaken their exploratory interests in the first place from exploring industry's seeds.

This is you blaming unintelligent people in the working class for not understanding the complexities of the system that you are raping them with. Good thing that there are people in the middle class who are going to do something about it eventually, or it'd go on forever, wouldn't it?

It's not my obligation or identity to live through other people. I'm interested in RELATING WITH people, not serving people or having people serve me.

Convenient.

Some people have potential, some people don't. A centrally planned economy dooms people who have potential from having resources sucked away from them towards those who do not.

I guess I'm just too much of an ethnicist to understand that monstrous point. Poor David Koch, whatever will he do if he has to lose one more penny of his hard-earned money to support some young mother in Texas who needs a little extra money in her pocket. [!]

Likewise, no, profiting off stupidity if a very frustrating process. Over the short run, yea, it's worthwhile because they're idiots. These are people who forsakened their potential because they chose to live practically rather than live meaningfully.

I hope that everyone is taking notes as well, because that is what I always thought that classical liberalism was about, and here you are confirming my prejudices. Why should we design an open system where you get to run around doing whatever you want?

There is no doubt that my opposition to liberty is well justified by your statement there.

Honestly, most people don't watch each other's threads Rei.

That's not what a glance at the view-count shows me!

What you point to are non-classically liberal practices.

You're quite stubborn about refusing to acknowledge the outcomes of your own ideology aren't you? Technically though you don't really believe that immigration or emigration exist in the first place, do you, since to you it would all be migration of economic inputs that businesses can ramp up and ramp down as they see fit.

Don't tell me it's either you or neocons and soc dems.

That convinces me I'm just choosing between the lesser of two evils. If that's the case, then the best thing to do would be to never choose at all. Show me why your world is good, meaningful, enjoyable.

Enjoyable to who? The majority, or to you? This is the key issue here, the reason it doesn't make sense to make a pitch at you directly, is because you don't value any of the basic things that most of the population are enamoured with. There are no common premises to work with. If you start from a position of not caring about the community or the well-being of the people in it, and if you start from a position of not actually caring whether the population group survives at all, then what does an ethnic-nationalist have to sell you?

All that's happening is that I'm slowly whittling down these issues until every single angle has been tried, but as we can see there haven't been any points of agreement yet, and there probably won't be.

You can imagine quite well what people would be doing, just it would all be things that you have declared that you actually want to break down anyway, isn't it?

[Daktoria]

This is you blaming unintelligent people in the working class for not understanding the complexities of the system that you are raping them with. Good thing that there are people in the middle class who are going to do something about it eventually, or it'd go on forever, wouldn't it?

What system? Classic liberalism doesn't have a system.

Also, it doesn't matter how unintelligent people are. What matters is curiosity. An idiot is someone who's forsakened curiosity in order to perform (just like how an economy is meaningless without culture).

I guess I'm just too much of an ethnicist to understand that monstrous point. Poor David Koch, whatever will he do if he has to lose one more penny of his hard-earned money to support some young mother in Texas who needs a little extra money in her pocket. [!]

How can Koch relate with people he doesn't know?

Our genes do not provide a cybernetic transcendental bond. If they did, you would be able to directly read the minds of everyone who's similar to you.

I hope that everyone is taking notes as well, because that is what I always thought that classical liberalism was about, and here you are confirming my prejudices. Why should we design an open system where you get to run around doing whatever you want?

There is no doubt that my opposition to liberty is well justified by your statement there.

The short term is boring.

It's really just that simple. People who are interested in the short term do not invent technology for customs to be practiced with unless they're luckily endowed with talents that don't require personality focus, and if we're going to say invention is a luck based process, well fuck it all. Society would be just as lucky or unlucky.

That's not what a glance at the view-count shows me!

Come on... you know the view-count is exaggerated by every page view, and every time someone clicks on a thread, that doesn't mean that person is reading the whole conversation.

You're quite stubborn about refusing to acknowledge the outcomes of your own ideology aren't you? Technically though you don't really believe that immigration or emigration exist in the first place, do you, since to you it would all be migration of economic inputs that businesses can ramp up and ramp down as they see fit.

The problem is you haven't shown how free trade and open borders are necessarily correspondent with free markets.

Enjoyable to who? The majority, or to you? This is the key issue here, the reason it doesn't make sense to make a pitch at you directly, is because you don't value any of the basic things that most of the population are enamoured with. There are no common premises to work with. If you start from a position of not caring about the community or the well-being of the people in it, and if you start from a position of not actually caring whether the population group survives at all, then what does an ethnic-nationalist have to sell you?

Enjoyable to us.

Let me fix things. If your organic folk state is so good, let's create an organic folk state together.

Communion and unity are artificial constructs. What you're doing is reducing people to natural objects such that there's no need to recognize the existence of communion and unity.

That's why love is so valuable. Love shows that people care about each other. If nature commanded us... love wouldn't be authentic. It would just be programming.

[Rei Murasame]

What system? Classic liberalism doesn't have a system.

Yes it does, you never miss an opportunity to describe it.

Also, it doesn't matter how unintelligent people are. What matters is curiosity. An idiot is someone who's forsakened curiosity in order to perform (just like how an economy is meaningless without culture).

How is culture formed?

How can Koch relate with people he doesn't know?

How do you know that he doesn't know them?

Our genes do not provide a cybernetic transcendental bond.

They don't need to.

If they did, you would be able to directly read the minds of everyone who's similar to you.

This still doesn't explain your desire to gouge the children of the nation.

People who are interested in the short term do not invent technology for customs to be practiced with unless they're luckily endowed with talents that don't require personality focus, and if we're going to say invention is a luck based process, well fuck it all. Society would be just as lucky or unlucky.

That is no way a response to my previous statement.

Come on... you know the view-count is exaggerated by every page view, and every time someone clicks on a thread, that doesn't mean that person is reading the whole conversation.

I'm pretty sure that they are, because enough people have responded to me in a way that would suggest that they are reading threads that they have not participated in. Plus, I read plenty of threads that I've never written a word in, so it's not a stretch to assume that other people do the same.

The problem is you haven't shown how free trade and open borders are necessarily correspondent with free markets.

Does anyone really have to show that at this point?

What you're doing is reducing people to natural objects such that there's no need to recognize the existence of communion and unity.

Sometimes the most valuable things shouldn't need to be recognised.

That's why love is so valuable. Love shows that people care about each other. If nature commanded us... love wouldn't be authentic. It would just be programming.

Then - as expected - we have completely different definitions of what love is. You seem to think that anything that is 'programmed' doesn't count. I disagree, mainly because a lot of what I do is programming that I just don't bother to resist.

When I pull some primary school kid who wasn't looking where she was going, out of the way of an oncoming truck, that isn't rationalised, that is automatic because it's an outcome of instinct overlapping with socialised duty. The love interwoven with that is authentic.

Sometimes I almost wonder if you'd hold entirely an different philosophy if you had more oestrogen and less testosterone.

[Daktoria]

Yes it does, you never miss an opportunity to describe it.

Can you show me where I've described a system?

Literally, I can show you what I just said:

Welcome to reality. Now what are you doing to do about it?




Publicly speaking, nothing. It's not my obligation or identity to live through other people. I'm interested in RELATING WITH people, not serving people or having people serve me.

How is culture formed?

Through curiosity. Learning and appreciating behavior is not something that arrives from the magnitude of information processing capacity (although higher magnitudes do make learning and appreciating easier). Rather learning and appreciation arrive from the instantiation of processing capacity.

Culture is about the correspondence of values to symbols and customs (semantics), not the coherence of symbols and customs in themselves (syntactics). The reason is because coherence can be a matter of luck, so it's insufficient. For example, if I roll 6 dice, there's a random chance they'll line up in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. That doesn't necessarily mean the dice are cultural.

I'm going to skip to the bottom of your post because this difference between correspondence and cohesion is the real difficulty we're having. (It's like the difference between entity-relationship versus object oriented modeling.)

Then - as expected - we have completely different definitions of what love is. You seem to think that anything that is 'programmed' doesn't count. I disagree, mainly because a lot of what I do is programming that I just don't bother to resist.

Programming sounds more like a sense of accomplishment, not love. Even in social aspects, society becomes objectified such that your program made an impact. It doesn't actually formulate a relationship between you and your users. You don't get to know one another. Yes, you're indirectly interacting, and yes, you could say there's a functionally societal organism.

HOWEVER, a RELATIONSHIP comes about from multiple people acknowledging THE SAME functionally societal organism. Even if you and someone else agree that a functionally societal organism exists, that doesn't necessarily mean you believe in the same idea.

Say there's a bag of candy on a table sitting in front of us. Inside that bag are sweets of multiple colors, sizes, tastes, textures, etc.

We each reach into it and take one.

Even if there are similar sweets inside the bag, we didn't necessarily get the same type.

The ONLY way we could relate here is if we imagine ALL the different types of candies which includes the ones we didn't get.

As a programmer, you can see every possible usage of your program, but as users, THEY do not. Yes, you're being maternal, but your relationship is one-way. You're giving yourself up in exchange for nothing personal from the other side, and the ONLY reason you continue to program despite this is because you're paid for your effort. In turn, the amount you have to be paid depends upon how much money you need in order to interact with society to see how your program physically impacts; without that compensation, you feel abused and demotivated.

This is why you need free markets. The government doesn't know your mind. It doesn't know how much compensation you need to feel satisfied, and there's no reason why your satisfaction must come at the sacrifice of someone else. After all, someone else is just as much of a person as you are.

It goes back to correspondence versus cohesion. The only way a centrally planned society can work is if it's lucky. It has to luckily coordinate satisfaction to sacrifice such that nobody really gets sacrificed at all because everyone's satisfying each other.

The odds of that are incredibly slim though. It's like saying, "Design me an engine with the right gears. Oh, by the way, you only get one shot, and no, you never get to see the physical specs of the car I'm building." In real life, yes, society gets multiple shots, but everyone in society does not. The cost of additional shots comes at the price of sacrificing the consciousness and experience of some of society's members. In turn, that actually changes society's framework AND it begs the question over why we're trying to build an engine for it (since the experience of driving/riding in the car has been diminished not to mention that who specifically drives/rides in the car is left up to a matter of luck).

When I pull some primary school kid who wasn't looking where she was going, out of the way of an oncoming truck, that isn't rationalised, that is automatic because it's an outcome of instinct overlapping with socialised duty. The love interwoven with that is authentic.

Ergo, if you weren't genetically endowed and had no history to look back on, saving that kid wouldn't be compassionate?

Rei, this is the difference between intuition and emotion. Emotionally speaking, you want to say no (for example, plenty of kids will laugh at a cartoon character getting ran over), but intuitively speaking, you want to say yes.

As long as you subordinate emotion to intuition, this is OK. It's tough, I know (especially since your strength to work, perform, and play comes from emotion), but we have to do it because if we don't, it's impossible to say either we exist or other people exist. Everything would be driven by physical influence, so our entire... beings in the world would be those of brains in vats.

Sometimes I almost wonder if you'd hold entirely an different philosophy if you had more oestrogen and less testosterone.

Well it's definitely not gender based because I don't have this problem with all men and all women. There are some men and some women who understand, agree, and sympathize with what I'm saying, and then there are others who go the other way. Heck, you said yourself:

you want to "destroy the whole world", as Dave would phrase it.

Then, there's the fact Fasces and Noemon don't agree with me either. If anything, the only remaining possibility is that I'm not hormonally driven enough (which probably has some validity because I've never had a huge sex drive ).

It's also not cultural or ethnic because I've had this and similar discussions with Britons and Japanese, and some likewise agree, some do not. Likewise, some Americans agree with me, some not, and that ambiguity is also cross-cultural and cross-ethnic.

As I've explained before, I think it comes down to personality (which includes the alpha-beta and charismatic ambition-analytic compassion dichotomies).

I also think it comes down to career. In my experience, most people establish their political ideologies based upon what's practical for them to survive.

It's kind of like your group selection article. People who don't prioritize survival as quintessentially important... die out. The exception is if they become successful first and AFTERWARDS appreciate alternative values, but of course, that would mean overcoming the primitive behavior of others.

I have no interest in overcoming others' primitive behavior. What I'm interested in is relating with others who overcome their own primitive behaviors. Am I willing to help people? Yes, but only if I believe they're compassionate, non-parasitic, and curious.

[Tribbles]

What are you people debating? Seems very complex and broad, I cant quite get my head around it....

[Rei Murasame]

It's basically Daktoria being a libertarian and me telling him that libertarianism is sociopathic. Just he insists on making this as complicated as possible.

[Orestes]

I actually find Dak's perspective kind of refreshing even though I make my way through his posts like through a jungle (and BTW I quite often happen to read this sub - forum so that I know what my Fash enemies are plotting ), I think I've never yet seen anyone argue extensively for Libertarianism from this epistemological angle, or whatever the fuck his angle should be properly described as.

What system? Classic liberalism doesn't have a system.

I once heard Libertarianism get defined as meta - system, or the scientific method applied to society - in that by allowing every possible social arrangement under the condition of lack of coercion (so the outcome doesn't suffer distortion), you test them like you would test a hypothesis against the empiry, and see which one(s) emerges at the top=which particular model of society produces the best effect. Would you find this definition of Libertarianism accurate ?

[Daktoria]

Yea, that makes sense Orestes. Libertarianism isn't dedicated to any particular social structure hypothesis. Rather it lets people experiment on their own because experimentation is how we know we're real.

It's important to note that libertarianism isn't just a political philosophy. It's actually an entire metaphysical outlook as well:

_________________________

It's basically Daktoria being a libertarian and me telling him that libertarianism is sociopathic. Just he insists on making this as complicated as possible.

At the very least Rei, I'm hoping you can tear me apart. Sometimes, libertarianism seems to be an anticipation, other times, a repression.

If you can show me another way to completely experience the world without going postal, that'd be great.

[starman2003]

While I disagree with the "people are stupid"

Oh, they can be street smart, but not very informed or responsible regarding national/world policy.

..stupid people with rich parents..

A meritocratic system could solve so many ills....It could at once strengthen the top and improve its outlook, and deprive the masses of leadership to resist vital change.

I agree that a green-turn towards ecological sustainability might need a high level of authoritarianism.

Definitely would.

[Bosnjak]

@Andropov It reminds me at Starship Troopers.

It is cool I share similar Ideas. I am nationalist but not racist, and a pan-humanist.

The Mankind has to unite, under one Government. It could be a global federation. the potencials of a well lead world wide state are incredible.

I support eugenic, deformed embrios, genetic illnesses, homosexual seeming chromosomes... should be discarded before birth.

I want capital criminals fighting each other in gladiator style arenas. (I love Rome)

Dog fights in TV, Human vs. Dogs...

There needs a world wide one child policy. (except for especially gifted people)

On Capital Crimes Murder, Childmolestation,high treason, should be executed and their organs like in china sold.

for especially cruel murderes should the Maximum Punishmet be enhanced, instead of death, serving as a laboratory rat, (human experiments lead fastest to results).

Rapists should be raped in TV by a Gay, several times, and then sent to workcamps.

People are like sheeps, a gifted propagandist can stear the mass of people with democracy much easier.

[starman2003]

..the potencials of a well lead world wide state are incredible.

Couldn't agree more. World unity itself would be the greatest achievement of mankind up to that point, and it would accomplish incredible things on earth and in space. Of course I like the idea of eugenics combined with stern measures to ensure population control.

[telluro]

It's a queer sight when cynicism mixes freely with idealism.

[Bosnjak]

Couldn't agree more. World unity itself would be the greatest achievement of mankind up to that point, and it would accomplish incredible things on earth and in space. Of course I like the idea of eugenics combined with stern measures to ensure population control.

You are right. With unity we could within decades built collonies on the moon.

to ensure population control.

This is the right term, today are our ressources limited, if we want to built up a huge middle class, we need to reduce the population.

Later if we have colonies on other planets should the population be extremly increased (by forbidding condoms, and abortion).

Perhaps it can not be a full democracy to be effective enough. We need a a constitution who allows authoritarian population controle laws by a Millitary council???

[starman2003]

With unity we could within decades built collonies on the moon.

Maybe Mars and Mercury too.

..should the population be extremly increased..

Probably wouldn't be practical without terraforming first and that'll take quite a while, where it's possible.

[Potemkin]

Maybe Mars and Mercury too.

Mars I can understand (gives low-energy-cost access to the asteroid belt for mining operations, &c), but what would be the point of creating a colony on Mercury? It's just a lump of scorched rock which is way too close to the Sun. Unless you plan on colonising the surface of the Sun, it's a dead-end. Besides, Mercury is much smaller than the Earth's Moon, which is a much more interesting place, and is closer and cooler too. Quite frankly, I can't see humanity ever colonising Mercury. A few unmanned bases, maybe, but a colony? No way.