the united states or around the world. so it's very important to us that collections be used, what they're here for, and our research library gives us that outlet so that they're accessible so that if people are interested in the history of maine, they can come here and they can view items or artifacts or some of our museum objects. .. the struggle between different colonial clusters in the different takes on that family shaped the colonial times and many of the

discussions in the revolutionary era. it was ugly back to the constitutional convention. to the debate and struggles that the colonies were having when they were actually fighting great britain. a constitutional monarchy in great britain but this was a conscious experiment to try to create one from scratch from a blank slate as it were. and how you would do that how would you ensure that fear --dash mac theoretically mike theoretically all individuals can maximize their freedom and autonomy it was a profound debate. did different debates.

and in some traditions and regionally -based traditions as well. it was seen about being about individual liberty. the sovereignty and personal freedom of individuals being maximized. freedom not to be taken to pathological extent. with the tidewater and chesapeake region. that property ownership should reign supreme and if you've gained these things you should be free to exploit all the way down to the absurd level that was held by many of the leading figures. he have to build a free society through the developing of a free community. the nurturing and creation of it. in other regions of the country where you have the

early puritans and their idea that humans were fundamentally flawed and corrupted. that you have to keep an eye on them. the individuals were suspect. that they would mess things up for everybody he have to have individual standdown if they were threatening the goals of the community because the peer to its thought they were creating and more godly defined inspired one. a shining city on the help. their ideas about the balance between individual freedom and the good of the community was very different. imagine in the aftermath of the american resolution. tries to negotiate and create a federation together it was a very difficult task and it has remained one that has been difficult ever since because the tendrils and the roots of these and other ideas go very deep and there often

contradictory. if you go on the extremes in either direction and leads to a destruction democracy. if you believe that individual freedom is upmost that the way to achieve it is to have less government and taxes and regulations that means that individuals had to be there. if you keep on doing it. and you go further and further down that road. until there is no effective government anymore than the most powerful individuals in families will maximize their freedom and you end up in the tierney we end up with a situation like the late 20th century guatemala. with the ten families. they control everything. they own in the military and the courts. if you go in the other

direction. you end up in perilous bombs very quickly. of the benevolent state or fatherland. the common good as expressed by whatever institution you given over to. you start seeing human idiosyncrasies has been a threat to the common good. all the way to the point at the extremes you get into this. so logically somewhere there is a balance point where the two forces are equilibrium's.

a sweet spot which is what the book argues through an examination of history is a spot any liberal democracy has to try to find and keep on in changing circumstances which is why it is so challenging. i'm balance is definitely possible. they have achieved balance. they have it easier. any of our pure liberal democracies in western europe in japan and they aren't, look at it gated societies that are the limitations of the ten or 11 regional cultures that date back centuries. in their case it's usually one dominant one or maybe two. and because of that there is a majority d dominant consensus. where the balance should be. many of them follow on a more common good aside. that if you averaged out all of the american regions. that's why most states are

social democracies and had pretty good experiences with us. you drop resources produced by it. in theory they are going to produce a good and free society. certainly the balance point is deftly more to the community good aside of things. he can be done can be done here. we are out of balance currently in the direction of individual liberty. we have gone at a balance to the point where you are seen all of the pathologies that start -- start forming. in this case because excess in the individual freedom and a

distrust of the political with the authoritarian leanings. ideally if there can have liberal democracy and had when someone is born regardless of circumstance. they have some decent chance. the m american idea got there and each person in their ideas and product are can find out there in a dynamic way and make the best ideas when. it will create a more dynamic and compelling and wealthy and free society. in many ways it has. but the trick is regardless of

the circumstances of their great grandparents or parents had that fair shot where you will start over time in decades you will start losing the promise of a liberal democracy. that is where we are out of balance now. that is when you start entering the dangerous realm. up next we feature the university of new england winter writers collection. the special library collection of unique materials with women in maine. it is at the university of new england. and it was founded in 1959.