If the person is a good leader, with the nation's interests at heart, I really have no reason to not follow his lead. The same could easily be said for Presidents, why would I ever willingly submit to him? And hence we have all of the separatist and state-centric models of the US.
What makes a good leader varies from person to person as the Political Thread shows
and what if a national interest was to suppress an entire political ideology? This is, realistically, a very important and sometimes vital national interest and many "good leaders" throughout history have done their best to suppress the opposition to their regime. Would you see a reason then? If your own beliefs and ideologies were all the sudden banned or not allowed? Would you still tell yourself, "he has the nation's interests at heart".
I have found myself becoming more and more disassociated with the idea of a state, with the idea of needing to listen to elected "betters" and while I would not call myself an anarchist, I don't think you need to be see truth in the following words:
A man can be strong. He can love his nation. He can want the best for his nation. But that does not make him worthy of being followed.
Because what's good for your nation and your tribe is ultimately going to be bad for another.
If the person is a good leader, with the nation's interests at heart, I really have no reason to not follow his lead.
Yeah but the person who inherits could be shit.
Usually they are.
and Caesar begat Augustus (yay)
and Augustus begat Tiberius (pls tiberius wat r u doin)
and Tiberius begat Caligula (fuck pls no wars on oysters)
and Caligula begat Claudius (your meh, Claude but oh fuck what r doing to the Britons)
and Claudius begat Nero (aw shit's on fire nao)
*yes i'm aware of adoption and shit, you know what i mean by using begat
