Many believe the interests of the 'nation' to be in opposition of that of the people — a belief which is the result of viewing nation as equivalent to the state,
rather than the people which constitute it (the nation). This distrust being no doubt the consequence of the world's governments being constituted of, and controlled
by, the elite class of 'politicians' and statesmen which come together to form a system that seems to be simultaneously against the interests of the individual and people,
whilst also devolving into inefficient bureaucracy it attempts (or when it claims) to address their concerns. With every transfer of information from one party
(unrelated to the term as it is used in electoral politics) to another, there is distortion: the case is especially true in the case of political 'representatives' whose
role is to relay the demands of those who elected them.
By far the largest obstacle in the way of real political democracy is lobbying (which I personally consider synonymous with 'corruption'), which is permitted and
facilitated by a tremendous lack of accountability and transparency. Only individuals possessing great resilience, animated by a will to do what they genuinely
believe is best for their people, those who are authentic and true to their convictions — those are the ones to whom we should grant respect.
In a system where the state most often does not serve the nation (in the sense that it does not serve the interests of the people), war can only exist as a means
of benefiting the military-industrial complex (or at best, to defend the state's sovereignty against an aggressor[1]). Supporting foreign
intervention is far from 'patriotic' — what part of sending young men to die in unknown fields far away from home, is good, let alone beneficial to the nation?
The nation is the people, thus to benefit the nation an action must be for the benefit of the people above all — not for that of the state or private entities.
