You still seem to be of the opinion that the majority of issues are black and white, when they really aren't. Check the video out below. Stumbled across it this morning, and it basically explains how the Republican's feel about states and their rights. If a state does something which aligns to their moral positions, then states are in the right. Yet, if a state does something the Republican's are morally against, then states are in the wrong. Sounds pretty familiar doesn't it?
You need to have consistency and logic in your policy. You might think that determining laws via right/wrong might be a good idea, but it's a very simplistic and naive view of the world. At the moment, your policy seems to be "well it doesn't matter who controls what, and it doesn't matter if their's a chaotic and confusing politic system with no real boundaries defined, as long as people follow what I believe is right/wrong". Here's some food for thought: Would you be happy if America was a dictatorship who had the exact same opinions as you had about everything? After all, he'd be implementing everything you feel is right/wrong (except removing everyone's right to vote), sounds like utopia right?
I'm not getting into the abortion debate, as we could argue forever about scope. But the fact of the matter is, an abortion in America does not affect Ireland in the least. Gun laws in America don't affect Germany in the least. Mandatory healthcare in America doesn't affect Italy in the least. A state introducing a law that gives its citizens the right to use drugs for recreational purposes, does not affect any other state. I'm sure even you can admit that all of that is true. And if you do agree, then that's how scope works. Why does it matter if one country is doing the wrong thing when it doesn't affect you in the least? Why do you feel obliged to butt in and force those people to follow your way? While it is possible in theory for an abortion in America to partially affect Ireland, the amount is negligible and can be regarded as 0.
The fact that the US has tried to force its morals onto other countries, and to force countries to obey its rules, has lead the US to getting attacked and hated by those countries. People are entitled to their beliefs, and are entitled to live the way they want to live. I personally don't concern myself with other people's business, unless it personally affects me. I'll never force anyone to change their ways if they are perfectly happy with their lives. It's a good moral to live by, and it's a moral that politics should be governed by.
I'm just of the opinion that policies should be based on reality, on what actually works in reality, and not on what someone imagines in their head might work. That "someone" includes myself. If my beliefs or opinions of what's good are shown to be false, then I am wrong. I don't know about you, but it just doesn't make sense to me that we should promote a policy that not only does not work in reality, but actually harms our society. That we should not allow such a policy, regardless of who promotes it, is a principle. That our decision making should be guided by science and research and reality, regardless of how (un)popular it might be, is a principle.
If the outcome of a "dictatorship" in America was an actually, observably better America, compared to what a "democratic" America can produce, then yes, I would support such "dictatorship". There are a lot of objective measures of what's good or what's better for a society, e.g. the physical, the emotional, the social well-being of its citizens.
An abortion in Ireland would affect a random Irish local flowershop owner just as much as it would affect a random British flowershop owner -- that is to say, not very much. You can't use your "scope" argument to fix the issue of abortion to precisely the Irish national borders, I'm sorry. I'm not arguing for Britain's involvement in the abortion issue, I'm just arguing against the Irish government's involvement. I argue against the random Irish flowershop owner's right to have a say in this issue, just as much as I argue against the random British flowershop owner's right to have a say in the issue. However, your position seems to be that an abortion doesn't concern the British shop owner, but it concerns the Irish shop owner just as much as it would the pregnant woman herself, and therefore any random Irish shop owner deserves an equal say in the woman's pregnancy.
I wouldn't feel obliged to "butt in" if all Irish individuals were indeed happy about their abortion ban, and believed that's the right thing to do. The reality is, Ireland doesn't just have one single opinion on abortion, some Irish are against it, other Irish are not. A lot of Irish individuals actually want that option, and are forced to go underground because of the ruling of the majority. You think it's bad to be forced to follow a certain way that you don't personally believe in? You think people should be entitled to their own beliefs, and to live the way they want to live? Well, then you can empathize with these people who live in the same country as you: they are being forced to follow a certain way that they don't believe in. I hope you're at least against the Irish anti-abortion laws.
And why would I bother if it doesn't affect me? It's basic human compassion. I'm not sure what kind of person you are, but if I hear someone cry for "help", I would feel compelled to help (or to investigate at least). Right this very moment, there are women in Ireland who feel they have no other options, desperate, and will risk their own lives to get an abortion illegally, because some other Irish individuals felt *they* had the right to make the decision to not have an abortion for, no, to FORCE the decision to not have an abortion on these women. Can you hear these women's cries for help? Are you aware that these women exist in Ireland?