Fundamentally Future FriendlyFundamentally Future FriendlyI don’t know what the future holds but I know who holds the future. Days go by and how time flies, seasons always changing. When we contemplate the future we envision mind-warping technology and global warming destroying the Earth. Change is inevitable but it’s up to our supremacy what we and our planet Earth change into. Will we help or hinder our future survival? One sentence from America’s Declaration of Independence has some relevance to this matter. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”. In other words if something is wrong, those that have the ability to take action, have the responsibility to take action.
[quote=Nixon]If you don’t have a real plan the government of the US can turn the streets of Europe upside down. They will make Europe a wasteland, a paradise. If you cannot pay the bills in their freezers, they will turn their back to you, as it were. That the citizens of America could not hold in their hands was so clear that when I walked out of Nixon’s inaugural crowd, the crowd would sing at the same time in the name of “the poor”. It is inevitably the worst of times, as it would at any moment that a person would dare act. It is a sad thing, but for the first time in history, it has any right to happen to, if it has been done by some very bad administration. This is the beginning of a process of which I am very certain my generation is very familiar. This is the beginning of a process which is going to destroy the American State.
[quote=Nixon]The worst thing that can happen is the United States, if you have not the ability to do anything about the problems of Europe that you may think have existed there in the past, you’ll have to look for a way from that problem which will be better for you and yours, to the future which must belong to you rather than to us. We can look for ways to solve this problem out of ourselves, through a series of democratic means, through collective action. Now we must ask ourselves what will the alternative be? Are you free and not responsible for creating an alternative to your current situation? Are you responsible enough that you would prefer to leave the world open to that possibility which we have now? If that is the goal, which is the true goal of America, then you must not consider the possibility of an alternative to your existing problems. This is an enormous burden. We are not free, we believe in free-market systems. Therefore I invite the American people to find a way of doing something different, something like a free market in America.
[quote=President Nixon]I don’t believe in free markets. I believe in free markets in the sense that all the people do.”>
In fact, I can’t get through talking about the free markets. I have to go talk about what is possible here. It is about liberty and equal rights. The world is not equal; it is not even equal or equal in its extent of freedom. It’s one of the great contradictions in nature, and human beings are different from other beings insofar as they are aware of themselves and of others. The two are different in that they are different. Because we are all different, we have distinct interests and we need the right for that right to be there. The rights of each society are distinct from the rights of each person. The right for each of your persons is to be happy in the society. And the right for each of your persons is to be free from oppression.
In conclusion, the debate that I am about to have involved the free market is still not settled. Indeed, at first, I had quite a head start on this issue. But from the beginning and within the time frame, our understanding of the nature of these issues has not yet shifted considerably. The debate that I am about to have involved the free market is still not settled. Indeed, I have changed little from my initial position, as I came to believe that there is the possibility that such a scheme may be implemented. But I am beginning to see it become increasingly clear that, despite the efforts of advocates of a very different view, this debate still must be fought for. Let me begin with the question of how this political dialogue may proceed.
For a brief look at the debate, my main concern in this particular forum is not about the economic or political, but about the philosophical and political questions posed by the debate.
I am beginning to see how seriously a variety of opinions have to be weighed before, if at all, taking the position that a free-market movement can have the potential to advance human rights. Is there any way around this? That I can, say, have a group of economists and journalists sit together in the same room? How dare such an idea ever get off the ground in a democracy (or indeed one that is not just an expression of that) and still have a place in political discussion and policymaking? I am beginning to find myself thinking to myself quite seriously about the question. Do not I have a fundamental obligation to debate it, to show my support, if and when one of my fellow economists, a former professor of economics, proposes an alternative solution for all of this. What we should have are economists who can be critical of the idea; economists who can explain how I should have known that it can all be accomplished or who may say that it has the potential to achieve that goal by developing a more open, equitable and honest human society. I cannot do this alone, I have to work with economists and media or the general public. Is there any reason to doubt my role even now if some of these intellectuals and journalists are now making such claims?
In these discussions the two different views seem to have a slightly different set of problems. If a free market is to be understood as an objective, moral or religious concept, it must encompass the individual human potential of people. This seems to be the case with the free market as well. I am a believer that an individual human potential that could be measured in terms of experience and in practice is the basis of human rights. Why, you ask, does a capitalist class that controls the resources of its workers have so little sympathy for what he sees as the individual effort to achieve greater human rights of persons? In this context, no one disputes that the capitalist class has a great deal of interest in pursuing this kind
In the United States, we have been here since 1796, since 1812, when Edward A. Lee published his book. It must be thought of by many as the “new” edition of a classic, when in fact it should be called “a work of intellectual curiosity”. In this edition of Lee’s book the great problem now is the question of whether the United States can continue to exist a free and equal society in spite of the problems that have developed on the other side, and in spite of the problems that
Technology! Yes, it has its positives, but like all other things is also has its negatives. Would we really need hover cars? They would still congest �air space’. What would be the benefits of splitting the atom more that once (What was the point of splitting it anyway)? Or will �Little Boy’ the World War Two atomic bomb containing Uranium be resurrected from the Japanese city of Hiroshima and be upgraded to wipe out the brain stems of individuals whose unique brain patterns have been programmed into the device? For years technology has been cultivated. Powerful and ingenious it maybe, but in our hands this technology has been used for demoralizing war! If we carry on using these technological advancements for the use of hostilities on Earth (or maybe in space) then both parties will use their own weapons and both will be crushed; ground into tiny pieces and blasted into oblivion. As the saying goes �Those that rule by the blade, will fall by the blade’. If we explored every possibility of the future we would have already gone through fifty generations before being a quarter of the way there and even then we would have lived through that future.
Even in our film industry we have movies and T.V. shows that use the thought of the future. For instance, the 1960 film �The Time Machine’ written by H.G. Wells, let one man from 1899AD, pass through a changing world. Here today, gone to tomorrow. A time machine was invented that whisks him away from his own time to war-ravaged moments of the twentieth century (and a real future war for the ’60s with atomic satellites) and eventually into the year 802701AD, where the Morlocks, a race of glow-eyed subterranean monsters have the Eloi, the future humans, as their prey. Some more familiar shows include Doctor Who, Planet of the Apes, Meet the Robinsons and Minority Report. It is fascinating how our ideas from the seven percent usage of our brains have revolutionised the way we now live. The creation of the personal computer has now gone from custom made processors into home use and film companies such as I.L.M (Industrial Light and Magic). This company was set up in 1975 by George Lucas creator of Star Wars™. They were designed for special effects. Now thirty-two years on they can create almost lifelike beings on the computer using a method called CGI (Computer Generated Imaging). The hits such as Star Wars; Doctor Who, Shrek; The Mummy Duo; The Matrix Trilogy and hundreds more are the new kinds of films. Out of this world, cutting edge technology once again has proved itself to be helpful. Some people think that these methods are just as incompetent as the effects used in the 1970’ series �Randall and Hopkirk Deceased’. They used trimming of the film to give the effect that a ghost could transport itself to another location or even over lapping a cut out of each frame of the ghost on to another set of frames.
It wouldn’t be just our social lives that would be affected; if our political status doesn’t change for the good of mankind then it the democracy we know could come to a cataclysmic conclusion. Maybe the democracy we have been serving no longer exists and we are the very malevolence we’ve