So far, we studied the State as a means designed to achieve ends.
However, the State is more of an emergent order, a concentration of control. It emerges from particular topologies of power which make a concentration relevant. In that regard, can we speak of an end for that order?
Man usually tries to design qualities into means to achieve ends. Ends are prior to the means. Could we conceive the converse: from means to ends?
Ends emerge from selection. Only that which is selected has an end. We must therefore look at the topology of power.
How may small nations survive? Let us remember Peter Thiel's wisdom:
The essence of capitalism is not competition, but monopoly.
A polyopoly is subject to price wars, which annihilates margins. Then, production fluctuations wipe out the competitors, as they have no reserves to survive the deficit. Only monopolies may hold.
It also applies to nations. Nations have many properties, such as natural resources, a culture, etc. Some properties confer a selective advantage to them in the local topology of power. Nations achieve fulfilment only through differentiation. The United States and China are both economical powers. But the former specialises in trade thanks to its control of seas and trade routes, whereas the latter specialises in production thanks to its massive cheap labour pool. Trying to establish trading power would be seen as predatory for the United States.
Sometimes, picking one's best abilities for national differentiation may not be wise. Macao's selective advantage make them fit as an economical gate between China and the rest of the world. But Hong Kong is even more fit (British law and knowledge of the business world, language, etc.). Hence, Macao lost and Hong Kong won.
The end of a nation given its selective advantage is called its manifest destiny.
When those who control the State are aware of its manifest destiny, then they understand that it is the only valid way to grow their power as it would not be lost in a useless competition. As long as their power is secure the State will coherently and confidently as one body. It is what propelled small nations to the centre of the world stage. According to the Heartland theory, the one who rules East Europe commands the world. The last centuries of British history can be understood through this lens. The United Kingdom achieved trade hegemony as a sea power. It becomes irrelevant if trade flows through the continent, hence all its geopolitical efforts involve the prevention of the unification of the continent.
The manifest destiny of the United States is easy to perceive because its fulfilment is underway. Alas for Britain, its child inherited its selective advantage and therefore manifest destiny. One had to die in order for the other to live. Today, the United States efforts can be also interpreted through this lens. Controlling the seas through the unification of both coasts, the Panamal Canal, destabilising Middle-East to prevent a new silk route, fomenting nationalism in the European Union to avoid its unification, preventing a rapprochement between Germany and Russia... What about other countries? Let us study the cases of a small and a middle nation: Poland and France.
Following the Heartland theory, Poland may be the centre of the world. It was always divided by foreign powers. It reached its golden age only when its territory spanned from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Only then could it secure its borders.
Its manifest destiny is its continuation: the Intermarium, uniting the Heartland between the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the Black Sea.
In Mélancolie française, Éric Zemmour defends the thesis that France has an old dream: transcending Rome. From Charlemagne to Napoleon, France always tried to recreate the Roman empire. After its fall in the 20th century, its elite moved from Paris to Brussels but never betrayed that dream.
The French political landscape is currently hopeless. They do not stir passions any more. If we had to do it, then it would be nothing less than the most glorious vision of all: the Néo-Saint-Empire.
Would the fulfilment of some manifest destinies preclude other ones? No, because they stem from nation differentiation. But nations may share a manifest destiny. In that case, only one will achieve it. One option would be merging. If they share the same properties, then they may be ruled as one nation and enjoy economies of scale. If they present discrepancies that make subsidiarity more relevant, then that precisely means that they do not share the exact manifest destiny.
Finally, we must not forget that empires are multi-dimensional and fractal. Today, nations are usually uni-dimensional: the sovereign of one geographical territory rules over everything inside. In reality, corporations such as Facebook are truly sovereign over data, for instance. Going back to Thiel's wisdom, big players will try to hide their monopoly through market diversification, while small players will prevent competition by over-specialisation. This is how small nations may survive.