Is it ethical for a democratic country to try to prop up a dictator just because the majority of that country's citizens would vote in a leader that would put in policies that were not as advantageous to them?

Who makes that determination? Us? I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the time they have a better grasp of what's best for them, and this is just a pretext for us getting what we want.

Where did the Twinkie thread go?

It depends on the scope of the difference in policies.

No.

So what's the next thread going to be about?

It's totally fine as long as the dictator is someone I like better than the guy that would have been elected. Otherwise it's morally reprehensible.

OP taken from Mitt Romney conference call?

Pinochet worked wonders for the free market of Chile. Too bad life was cheap and liquidated under him...

Is it just a yes or no question? I'm confused. I'm gonna say no.

Whaaaaaa. Babies itt. You lost, the country just voted for the person who is more advantageous to them. What an insane question to ask. So if 90 percent of people vote for someone and 10 percent another, the 10 percent can just say we need a dictator because it is more advantageous to everyone? Weird thread OP.

It depends.

If the dictator is Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

It depends on whether or not those advantages are pussy-related.

It worked for the Romans for about 450 years.

The question is not whether it works, but whether it is ethical.

Countries don't do things, people do things. And "try to prop up a dictator" is vague (what exactly are they doing?), you have to know what the action is before you can determine if it's ethical.

DS post is written awkwardly so you get a pass for not getting it. Think Salvadore Allende or Mohammed Mosaddeq for real life examples of what he's asking

fyp

I assume you mean "the majority of the dictatorial country's citizens", but as you had only referred to one country it's difficult to parse.

Here I have no idea whether "them" refers to the citizens of the democratic country or the citizens of the dictatorial country, or both.

Maybe this will help: Ambiguous and Vague Pronouns

If the dictator is a porn star or a hand model it is better

The action doesnt seem particularly important to the question.

The OP seems to be asking if it's ethical to take advantage of people who don't have a choice in preventing it.

Is this really a question?

By definition it's not ethical. We could debate whether we should be ethical, but propping up a dictator for our own advantage is clearly not ethical. OP is tantamount to asking "is it OK to severely hurt other people to help myself a little?".

The answer is no, it is not ethical. Evil actions are not ethical. The fact that someone would even ask that is disturbing. But I suppose that in the information age it's tough to keep secrets or keep things on the down low. Instead of keeping things clandestine and under reported the right will have to start challenging basic notions of right and wrong. Kind of scary.

US pundits are now frequently saying that we were too hasty in supporting the Arab Spring. That is what my OP was about, if it wasn't obvious. I would assume that their justificdation for this stance is either that we should think of ourselves first or maybe that other countries voters don't know what is best for them.

Hairy topic, but this ignores that there are massive groups of people who are completely ignorant to the damage that humans can do to the resources we all require. Should we also not teach elementary school?

Allowing certain groups to do what they feel is best for them gives those of us with a pretty decent idea about ways-of-life something to contrast against.

Freedom = Choice = Evidence.

If we value the assets of a particular area, (say, the arable land of the middle-east) it is in our best interest to convince the people of that area to value their assets for the same reasons. If they don't and they harm the prospect of the survival of the entire species, then yes, limited intervention may be justified. Instructing people to protect their interests and understand the value of resources is not the same as lording over them the way that some itt seem to be suggesting, for good or ill. I believe our current brand of influence is call "soft power".

That said, it's pretty lol that any representative organization can really control the self-interested human. People gonna people imo.

This was the kind of response I was looking for. Admit I could have phrased OP better.