Government in the twenty-first century will become first and foremost the arch protector of individual freedoms.
If emancipation and enfranchisement were the priorities of the last century, liberty and equality should be the buzzwords for this one.
Over two centuries after the French Revolution, the full actualisation of these concepts is still eluding us.
As the left/right argument becomes at best intractable, and at worst outmoded, the axis of political debate should now revolve around individual freedoms.
It is no longer a question of whether communism or capitalism form the best government, since in a post global crash world it has become apparent that both forms are available in pure and corrupt form.
The challenge to mankind is to find forms of government which best guarantee free and fair promotion of personal liberties.
Personal liberty is that which enables human rights to exist and be pragmatised.
For instance we can all agree on the human right to live without persecution and on the right to free speech.
But what happens when one person's free speech offends someone else's beliefs? We can all agree that a humane society ought to provide its citizens with the opportunity of a home and an income, but what happens when the economy takes over and makes those things impossible for some? The creation of the welfare state in the UK in the 1940s was a major step forward in the role of government as carer, but as populations grow and become more elderly, and unemployment becomes an entrenched economic factor, the cost of handouts becomes too much of a burden.
The state, the taxpayer, no longer relishes the prospect of high taxes to fund a dependency culture.
We all want a safety net in times of crisis, but nobody is prepared to pay for it.
The recent bail out of banks around the world is the most blatant and expensive gesture of "care" that nation states have ever made, but it was seen as a handout to the rich not the poor.
Future bail outs ought to take into account the have-nots as well as the haves.
Only then can the government be seen as an independent arbiter of freedom for all.
The choice before us all is clear: either we continue to polarise groups, religious, ethnic and economic, and deal with the ensuing conflicts; or we strive for a multi-cultural, free-thinking, tolerant society that is open and accepting in the treatment of all its citizens.
The latter is the way to go, taking on board new radical thinking along the way.
For instance, the right to be poor is as valid as the right to be rich, but if society stigmatises poverty then the poor become outcasts.
Not everybody wants responsibility, but are nonetheless happy to work hard and be a vital small cog in a big wheel; the rewards ought to be commensurate with effort not just level of authority.
These are not lefty ideas, but liberal ones (with a small l) allowing each of us to be equally valued and feel equally accepted regardless of personal circumstances.
The corresponding pay off in terms of social cohesion and psychological stability would be uncountable.
The enemy to this vision of utopia, is vested interest.
Just as vested interest delayed the abolition of slavery, so global vested interest will delay the fruition of individual freedoms, preventing in the process such staples as clean air, a stable natural environment.
food for all, and war free zones.