I stumbled upon a good piece from the blog, Deviant Scholar.  It discussed whether a nation can be a "superpower" and remain free.  The author concludes unambiguously that it cannot. 

I have mixed feelings.  I think there is no doubt that the more responsibility one has on the world stage, the more difficult it is to persuade the public that the sacrifices they are incurring are worth it.  Can such power be reconciled with freedom?

Perhaps, a more relvant question is- do people deserve freedom if they are slaves to passion and the ultimately empty promises of pure materialism?  Freedom is not always "negative" in the sense that it is only a concept applicable in outlining what cannot be done to a person.  Freedom also must maintain a "positive" component, or what a person ought to do and then allow them to actualize that ought. 

Both aspects of freedom are necessary for the concept to meaningful.  Too much of one leads to hedonism, too much of the other to docility in the face of tyranny.

If we have the most power in the world, are we then "free" to turn our back on it?  Or do we have a responsibility that maintains the positive element of freedom?

I believe we have the responsibility as the consequences (as I often state on my blog) of a global power vacuum are much worse than the consequences of upholding relative stability.

The Deviant Scholar seems to make the not unpersuasive case that we do not have this responsibility and that, in fact, this view will necessarily lead to a lack of freedom in general.

This is a fundamental debate and should be taken seriously.