Boundaries

     What do we hold the individual responsible for? This is not simply a matter of social interaction since an individual subject or citizen is part of a whole that represents a national identity.
     Does the level of freedom in personal, social, or everyday interactions cause or encourage bigger moral boundaries?
The real question: Does the more a person feels he can do, impact what his country thinks it can do? Or is the reverse true: Does national expansion of ability encourage increased personal views of ability?
     If a country realizes its power to conquer another nation and succeeds, the citizens have boosted confidence in their country's might which results in high morale, increased economic prosperity, and raised levels of military support among civilians. If a country fails to subdue its enemy, its populace feels discouraged, depressed, and demoralized, especially after repetition proves their fears true.
     However, if the citizens themselves have freedom, inspiration, and energy, that translates, on a national scale, into an invigorated strength for the nation as a whole.
     But what comes first? National success translating into increased moral freedoms of the subject-citizens or bold private practices impacting public policy?
 

     Relative to her European neighbors, England had a free society whose elite could function independent of the king, diverging from continental policy because William the Conquerors' agreement with his nobles. Land ownership determined wealth which determined social freedoms as evinced by the Magna Carta. The more power possessed, the more leeway allowed because of retributional might. With the rise of the British Empire, the country's policies pushed forward to maximize economic production, especially after the beginning of the industrial revolution in the late eighteenth century. The evolution of British rights from the Magna Carta to World War I meant that while citizens were protected, the individual was undervalued by the collective whole largely due to the sheer size of the empire. After the collapse of imperial age Britain, the country espoused greater values for individuals culminating in the strong support of the socialist movement by the populace. In short, the freedoms of the populace allowed the nation to grow and expand.
     Let us look at the proudest of England's daughters, the United States, to re-enforce this conclusion. America, land of the free, has, since its independence, boasted of the great freedoms its citizens possess. The politicians espouse that freedom made the nation great since individual liberty inspires innovation. Since its victory "over" the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the world's mono-polar power dominated the world stage economically, politically, and militarily. With that supremacy on the world stage, overconfidence both in the late Cold War era and 2001 with the initiation of the war on terror has significantly reduced both political acceptance of unconditional freedoms and private views of self-ability with the economic recession begun in 2007. In short, America perfectly reflects that individual freedom promotes national greatness and coincides with that nation's collapse. National dominance abroad has turned to national dominance over internal affairs, undermining private, personal freedom.
     As ancient Egyptian religion expanded outward from the pharaoh to the general populace, Egypt grew into one of the the mightiest peoples in the world. The freedom eventually pushed too far and caused a disintegration in the general structure of society. Thus, there is a necessary balance between freedom and strength. Ancient Greece and Rome both provide similar examples.
     An example of this is the basic military training of soldiers. The general both wants his men to follow orders as well as achieve success with minimal loss. If a commander orders his troops to march across train tracks with the train coming, some may run over beforehand, others afterward, but none of the men will walk into the train to die because they have the freedom of thought.
     Is the conclusion then that bigger self-ego generates bigger national-ego? Or that bigger national-ego inspires bigger self-ego? While being partially both, the laws of a nation determine private freedom. Private freedom indulges the population to push farther and strive harder, culminating in national expansion. National expansion proves superiority abroad further strengthening domestic freedoms in a positive feedback loop. This continues until, inevitability, the freedoms undermine national efforts because of individual desires or the nation's expansive powers turn internal to crush opposition by diminishing freedom.

  __    
Agatha Tyche