[SampleMan]

Yes, we do allow the will of the majority to determine the national interest.

I don't like dictatorial governments, whether they be monarchies, strong men, or democracies. Democracy and tyranny are not mutually exclusive. In fact, its a greater threat to your liberty when a majority of people want to take it away. I do not concede my God given rights to a majority vote.

Your argument is over legitimacy to make a decision, but my point was on the value of the decision itself. You may not believe that Alfred the Great had legitimate authority to make decisions, but that doesn't mean that his decision to build a navy and drive off the vikings wasn't in England's best national interest.

Making decisions that are or are not in the national interest is not tied to the legitimacy of the person making the decision, and a majority of people can all agree to do something tremendously stupid and extremely harmful to the national interest. The majority backing of that decision doesn't make it a good one.

Most people in the world have made the decision that they would rather be ruled by one strong man/group that maintains order, because they don't think the alternative is an ordered free state, they think the alternative is anarchy and lawlessness. I think the majority of Russians fall into that category.

What is my takeaway? That we aren't going to easily drive a wedge between Putin and his power base, or stir up the Russian masses, when the majority of those masses think he's acting in their national interest, because they like him better than what they see as the alternative.

[elhombrelibre]

I do agree that a non-democratic leader, a dictator, may make a decision that's best for the nation. I also believe that a blind pig finds a nut now and again. Democracy is not a perfect government nor is it a truth test; it's more like what Churchill said about it. He said that it was the worst form of government, except for all of the others.

I think the flaw in what you wrote in your last post is this: "Most people in the world have made the decision that they would rather be ruled by one strong man/group that maintains order, because they don't think the alternative is an ordered free state, they think the alternative is anarchy and lawlessness. I think the majority of Russians fall into that category." I have to ask you if you came to that conclusion based on the results of the plebiscites that were taken where most people in the world voted not to be able to choose their rulers, or is it circular logic that if they have a strong man, then they must have supported the strong man to have one? Your suggestion is much like how kings argued that their rights were divine. Since they were king, God obviously intended it. Do you not see my point?