Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

Essentially all countries would have to become very competitive for people or they'd almost immediately be out of existence. Countries that were the greatest would have to be selective on who they let in or they'd go to shit quick.

Rules are - 1 - You HAVE to move to another country at 18. So if you're already in country #1 you have to move to country #2. 2 - The country you move to has to be the best that will take you, no next door country etc.

Essentially all countries would have to become very competitive for people or they'd almost immediately be out of existence. Countries that were the greatest would have to be selective on who they let in or they'd go to shit quick. Rules are - 1 - You HAVE to move to another country at 18. So if you're already in country #1 you have to move to country #2. 2 - The country you move to has to be the best that will take you, no next door country etc.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (14).
[–] • 1 pt

How about if you want your children to inherit your land? Splits families too. I think that there are probably better ways to solve the problems you're trying to solve :p

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Do you really want to live in a country where your commie cousins are out voting you?

Or would you rather live in a country almost entirely of 'your kind' including many of your family.

This system helps ensures countries remain ideologically the same. It forces governments of countries to actually provide a good country.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Do you really want to live in a country where your commie cousins are out voting you?

That situation is not ideal and I admit I have people who are left in my extended family. What would suffice for me is to get back to pre 2000 Sweden, it was not ideal but it was so much better oh boy, and put rules in place to stop the last 20 years or degeneration.

Isn't it easier to declare communism to be illegal, or semi-illegal, rather than to at a global, or at least international, level create a forced migration program? Laws that the population must be at least 90% Aryan etc. I don't know but there must be plenty of ideas out there. Removal of women's voting rights and/or raising the voting age to 25.

Forcing people to move will make the connection between land and people weaker. When I look at a Cathedral that's 100s of years old does it not have value to be able to say "my people did this"? If you move it makes you a foreigner (at least until you hopefully meld into the population).

Also what will happen with local languages if your idea was implemented? Would they survive or would there only be a world wide lingua franca left (English?). Why are local languages important? I think it is what has saved Hungary and what has allowed them to retain their culture abd basedness. Hungarians suck at English in my experience (even a some/lot of young ones) and Hungarian is said to be a difficult language to learn. The language barrier have saved them from the poison that, sadly, comes to a large extent currently from the English speaking world.

I am not sure how your system would ensure that countries would remain ideologically the same.

[–] • 0 pt

A population no matter how perfectly ie capitalist they are, and no matter how perfectly the constitution etc is written, will inevitably have communist children. It's a matter of percentages and falling far enough from the tree.

If a country does not have a method of ejecting incompatible ideologicals, then they will form groups and start reproducing on their own.

This naturally will lead to degradation of the country, civil war or balkanization etc. As these groups will want to live under a government of their ideology.

No country that doesn't have a way of ejecting those who are ideologically incompatible will inevitably fail.