Today, we continue our in depth breakdown of the Seven Deadly Sins with an analysis of the Sin, 'Gluttony'. Once again, so I can be sure we're all singing from the same hymn sheet, let's look at the dictionary definition of 'Gluttony': excessive eating and drinking. Simple.

But how does one define excessive? Again, the dictionary tells us it means: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree. So, then, gluttony seems to denote the act of eating or drinking more than one needs to survive, since anything more, by this definition, is unnecessary.

Every vice in the Seven Deadly Sin list is given a corresponding virtue to live by. In the case of 'gluttony', its opposing virtue is 'temperance', which means accepting the natural limits of pleasures in a bid to preserve the natural balance. Resonating with the previous paragraph, by eating more than your body actually needs - into the realm of pleasure - is apparently enough to incur punishment of holy proportions.

Further research into the sin of 'gluttony' tells us that it is seen as an overindulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of waste. So, apparently, consuming more than you need is 'waste'. A more in depth look tells us that, in Christian circles, the 'waste' tag comes from the mindset of "if you're eating more than you need, you're withholding it from the needy."

Citing an article on the sin that is gluttony over at Wikipedia, where the contributor had obviously done their homework, was the following: "Depending on the culture, it can be seen as either a vice or a sign of status. Where food is relatively scarce, being able to eat well might be something to take pride in (although this can also result in a moral backlash when confronted with the reality of those less fortunate). Where food is routinely plentiful, it may be considered a sign of self control to resist the temptation to over-indulge."

This is totally subjective. So, then, if you’re doing well for yourself in a poor community, you're not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your hard work too much, because it's not fair on the less 'fortunate'. Okay, so this means that those that are 'fortunate' enough to be able to enjoy a good meal, must have received their fortune in a cookie at the Chinese takeaway, since the advocates of this philosophy seem oblivious to the fact that fortune is created by action.

And if you're doing well for yourself, and live in a wealthy neighbourhood, (i.e., you decided you actually wanted to respect your existence as a human being and fulfil your massive potential by getting off your backside and creating something) to, again, enjoy the table of plenty before you after a smart day's work - is apparently over-indulging! Fascinating stuff.

I sometimes find myself completely bemused that today, still, in the twenty first century, my fellow humans are lazily refusing to understand how those that are living the life they read about in magazines are achieving it. They deny that the man that drives the Ferrari, who steps out in beautiful, bespoke cloth, and into the exclusive restaurant to enjoy a five course meal - actually created it all himself.

Those that truly enjoy life, respect their existence as a human being, and honour the amazing potential that goes with it - that live as a humanpreneur - choose not to over-indulge in food or drink, anyway. If they were to over-eat or over-drink, how long do you think these rational life-lovers would keep destroying their cells and clogging their arteries for before realising that they were destroying the very vehicle that allows them to live?

It's not gluttony, my friend, that will destroy our race: It's the existing systems that allow the power-seekers to legally extract a portion of the producers' hard-earned income to appease everyone else with the creation of support systems for complete strangers - including those that wouldn't recognise a hard day's work if it came over and fixed their broken boiler for them. This system is diluting the potential brilliance of our race.

It's stifling the humanpreneurs, and feeding the lazy. A system like this effects the depletion of the earth's resources, since they are being used quicker than they are being produced - the balance is out. Were humans left to be free, to produce, to sell, to charge what they wished for the product of their humanpreneurialism, with every man as an end in himself - only the best would survive, leaving plenty of room and resources for those that actually wanted to 'live'.

Until then, we live in a timebomb, awaiting the discovery of another planet to relocate to before we run out of resources here on earth. Either that, or we derail the system in favour of one that actually befits the human race. Hmmm… Now there's a thought.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

This is going to be fun. In the next few articles, I'm going to break down the Seven Deadly 'Sins', each in turn. In case you didn't know, or indeed had never before heard of the seven deadly sins, they are basically a classification of seven 'vices', stated in early Christian writings, as a way to deliver followers from 'temptation' away from the virtues the sins are apparently opposing. Any yielding to a deadly sin is seen as destroying the life of grace, and carries with it the punishment or threat of eternal damnation.

Today, I start with 'Lust'. Now, the dictionary defines 'Lust' as an intense sexual desire or appetite. Is 'intense sexual desire' a bad thing? The Bible and its many versions of preachers would seem to think so. They seem to believe that the act of sex itself is a physical, carnal, animal act of misuse of the flesh, that it's only function should be to procreate. But the human body tells a different story…

For starters, did you know that its women, not men, who have an organ made solely for sexual pleasure? The clitoris. The clitoris actually comes from the same tissue that develops into the glans of the male penis. It has twice the number of nerve endings as the penis and, because it is so much smaller, it is ultra sensitive.

Women's orgasms that can last minutes, or much longer, compared to a man's, which can be over in seconds. Men have one orgasm and then lose their arousal. Women can have orgasm after orgasm - and many different kinds, too. Doesn't it makes sense, then, that women would want to enjoy sex as much as possible on a recreational basis, as well as just on a procreational level, rare as that would likely be?

As for men - the real men - it's no secret that we love sex, even if the act itself is not as intense as it is for women. For a man that truly loves women, a man who completely gets off on seeing his women enjoy themselves in bed, who isn't satisfied until he's enjoyed the look of rapture on her face as he makes her orgasm again and again - merely getting in and getting the job done is not enough; that would not be a true fulfilment or expression of his masculine sex. (And it's certainly not fun for the woman, too).

Now, all this is fine. BUT, the dictionary also defines 'Lust' as uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness. Illicit sexual desire. Lecherous. Hmm… With definitions such as these, one can only reason that 'lusting' in this manner pertains to those who are then committing adultery.

Indeed, according to this article over at 'Our Cheating Ways' on infidelity, writer, Peggy Vaughan, states in her book, "The Monogamy Myth", that recent statistics suggest that 40% of women (and that number is increasing) and 60% of men at some point indulge in extramarital affairs.

The reasons? There are a couple. But before I explain, you may recall my comments on the role, 'value' plays in relationships from my articles, Is It Right To Play The Field?, Is It Shallow To Go For Looks? and Oysters And Pearls. They're well worth a read. But, in a nutshell, every human has an objective value, determined by his values and the measure thereof. It's in a human's best interests to be always working to increase his value.

And because value attracts equal value, a man can only attract and keep a woman of equal value herself - and vice versa, of course. For this reason if a partner in a relationship raises their value, or the value of their partner drops for whatever reason, it is only natural that they will want to seek out someone of like value. So with that said, what attributes are the 'adulterers' seeking when they stray?

Concerning 'lust' and sexual desire, the two main, possible reasons for infidelity are genetic and spiritual. For a man, a diminishing of beauty on the part his partner (and subsequent lowering in physical value), can trigger his in-built need to pursue other, beautiful, healthy females (the embodiment of good genes) in a bid to spread his seed further and ensure the continuing of his line into further generations.

For a woman, a lack, or the receding of masculine traits in her man such as social status, leadership, dominance and ambition personify a male no longer equipped to protect her and the offspring, putting their survival at risk, and can likewise spur her to search for another male of like value, equal to the task.

For both the male and the female, on the spiritual level, referring to what we discussed earlier - men and women both love sex on a recreational level, too. Good sex feels good. And for someone that is good at it, that is a big tick in the box on their part - and a contribution to his overall value.

Sexual prowess equals higher value. Unfulfilled sexual desires are a big void in the value of the frigid/impotent partner. Now observe the restrictiveness and therefore vulnerability of the marriage contract - is it any wonder why, with the continuing sexual revolution, encouragement of sexual expression and the sexual liberation of women, that divorce rates are so high?

But the seven sins were highlighted to correspond with their opposing virtues, with 'Chastity' being the virtue in this case. And of course, chastity means abstinence from sex altogether. Further research, however, teaches us that the 'lust' that features on the Seven Deadly Sin list is usually thought of as involving obsessive or excessive thoughts or desires of a sexual nature.

So, then, can we take the Deadly Sin of lust to mean an overindulgence of sex, beyond what's 'required' - i.e., for any reason other than procreation? I'll tell you what overindulgence is: prostitutes, excessive masturbation, hours spent watching porn - among others. Sexual or sociological crimes such as bestiality, paedophilia, rape, and incest can be linked with a downward spiral into a lonely, sociopathic life fuelled by unfulfilled, natural, human lusts and desires - a cornerstone of a high value life. As an aside, it's a well know fact that some of our most ravenous bedfellows are those of a sexually-repressed, religious background.

The fact is, sex - good sex - is a wonderful, spiritual act - a celebration of two or more (or less) person's mutually respected value of each other. A good life is about balance. The ultimate existence of a human is that of a humanpreneur, i.e., one who strives to grow himself mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually. Sex isn't just a physical act. Those who say that just aren't doing it correctly! The body is merely the vehicle that allows us to enjoy it. The more we take care of the body, the longer we live.

Sexual nerve endings erupt with delight at direct stimulation, but women can orgasm without even being touched, using only the power of the human mind. Real sex is not without emotion, either. To say that sex is a base act is ignorant and despicable. As I said , good sex comes from two or more people celebrating each other's mutually-respected value for each other. Emotions abound; there's no room for the base, here.

All this makes for a spiritual experience that makes the soul soar as if riding a rollercoaster, driving a car fast, listening to an emotive song or savouring sweet sherbet. The continual drive for human improvement and the practise of good sex - coupled with the balanced lusting thereof - makes for an increase in personal value, which results in the attraction of higher value, like partners.

This process negates any desire for an individual to regress into a life of internet porn marathons, trench coat-flashing and stalking. Humanpreneurship - equals - higher human value - equals - attraction of equally-valued humans - equals - good sex - equals - desireless of abnormal sexual activities - equals - balance - equals - sexual fulfilment - equals - happier human race. Simple!

Finally, 'Lust', in the context of the Seven Deadly Sins, also pertains to any form of desire or overindulgence, not necessarily of a sexual nature. The idea is that to desire more into one's life, of a material nature, is sacrilege. We'll go deeper into this in other 'Sins', but my retort to this is the same: balanced lusting and desire is fine, and mandatory for the formulation of an idea of what to aim for. The attainment of (again, which will be discussed in upcoming articles) said desires, is effected by action - and, therefore, fully deserved.

In conclusion, recreational sex is a great thing. The lusting of it is natural and necessitates the realisation of the actual act. Nothing just happens - it is attracted into your life because of the person you are; any action effected by thought-out, conscious action. Excessive, irrational lusting makes for an unbalanced, low value life, which in turn results in low value experiences. The downward spiral continues until the volitional redirection toward a high value life.

Someone once said that if you want your dreams to come true, you have to wake up. Dream well, my friend, but not for too long.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

Today, in the UK at least, it's Easter Sunday. And here, we have laws that prevent shops of a certain size trading on this day. Now, if you've spent any amount of time on this site, you can probably already guess my answer to the headline question. The answer is 'yes'. What? Just kidding. The answer is a defiant 'NO' - we definitely do not need Easter Sunday trading laws - or any trading laws, for that matter.

The law, called the Sunday Trading Act 1994 states that shops over 280 square metres or 3,000 square feet big are permitted only to open for six continual hours between 10am and 6pm on a Sunday, and not at all on Easter Sunday. In researching this article, I couldn't find any objective reason as to why the law had been passed. The best I could find were generalities such as, "It's a time for families" or "It's for social and religious reasons."

On the BBC news site, I found a story from the 15th April 2006, titled: "MP Opposes Easter Sunday Shopping." At the time, talks were taking place to extend Sunday trading times, as supermarkets had requested the right to open on Easter Sundays AND to stay open for three extra hours on regular Sundays. A cross-party panel, including the said South East Cornwall MP, a Mr Colin Breed, was opposed to such plans, with their 'reason' being, again, "social and religious." They didn't go into detail.

Colin Breed had this to say, "I don't think they [the supermarkets] should be trying to steam-roller over every single aspect of our lives and we don't want them to squeeze out any more of the smaller shops. I see this campaign by the supermarkets to increase, yet again, their trading hours on a Sunday, as just a further erosion. They just want to get to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no matter what the religious holidays are."

There are so many points wrong about this statement that I almost don't know where to start. Firstly, how are the supermarkets 'steam-rollering' over our lives? I feel just fine, thanks, Colin! Maybe where he lives, supermarkets knock at your door and force you by gunpoint to visit their store? No.

Colin, in keeping with his socialist beliefs, is ignorant as to how supermarkets earn their money. Here's how it works: They stock a product that consumers have shown they want, the consumers agree the price is right, and then they buy it. If they didn't think the price was right, the supermarket, if they wanted to stay in business, would have to improve the quality of the product to match the price, OR decrease the price to match the quality, at which point the consumers start buying.

Freedom of choice is evident at every step of the way, here, from product conception, to stocking, to selling and buying. No 'steam-rollering' has taken place. The market is the only regulator you need. His second point is even better.

He remarks that "'We' don't want them to squeeze out any more of the smaller shops." Squeeze what, exactly? What he fails to acknowledge is that the supermarkets were smaller shops at the beginning, too. But their ambitious owners decided that they weren't content with serving milk over a counter for the rest of their lives, and so planned and worked toward the expansion of their one shop into many, much larger ones.

As they, too, had their own competition, they had to operate with guile and genius in creating a product and service that was of superior quality and price to that of their competitors. And their eventual reward was a chain of supermarkets that people regularly, willingly visit to buy their quality products at the right price.

Colin continues: "I see this campaign by the supermarkets to increase, yet again, their trading hours on a Sunday, as just a further erosion." Erosion of what? He doesn't say. Then: "They just want to get to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no matter what the religious holidays are." Hmm… Would the supermarkets profit from doing this?

If they did, it would be because people, again, were willingly putting their hand in their pocket to buy things they wanted. If the supermarkets didn't make a profit from 24/7, what would be the sense in their throwing money away keeping the shop open? Again, the market is the only regulator you need.

As an ex-retailer for many years before venturing into the business world, I was privy to the first hand views of fellow shopworkers. Needless to say, the opinions were split as to whether the law (which was a few years old by then) was a good thing or not - with most believing it was. In fact, unsurprisingly again, the majority actually believed the law was a bad thing, and that they believed that NO store should be permitted to open on ANY Sunday.

Indeed, shopworkers are among the loudest protesters. According to another BBC news story from 25 June, 2006, titled: "Shoppers 'Want Long Sunday Hours'", any Sunday extensions were vehemently opposed by the Church of England and Usdaw, the union representing shopworkers. What a surprise. The same cross-party panel 'warned' that extended shop opening times on Sundays could give some parents less time to spend with their children. (Referring to parents who willingly choose to work somewhere that operates on a Sunday)

They explain, "We would like to see this country return to a day of rest, to have a day when families can be together, have the Sunday dinner, go out and go to the seaside, play in the park." That would be really nice for them. I'm sure they'd like to hire officials round to our houses to make sure we're complying with their wishes, too. In fact, we could even sit on the floor, eating spotted dick for dessert, then ride our penny-farthings down to the park, play with our spinning tops and completely return to the nineteenth century. As long as they get their votes.

To briefly touch on the religious aspect of the Easter holiday, in the aforementioned articles a case was made for the 'respect' of Christianity. In light of it being a religious holiday, this is natural. But, being an atheist, and fighting for freedom, comments like these serve to add fuel to my fire.

If it isn't bad enough that businesses are forced to close their doors, the 'reason' given to them - that it is to pay homage to a man who came back to life again - is pure madness. Allow me to be the kid in the street calling-out the emperor wearing no clothes by declaring that this is absolutely insane.

Many businesses have been speaking out in opposition to the trading laws, exclaiming that they have cost them thousands in lost revenue. This is revenue that consumers were happily dipping their hand in their pockets for to hand over in exchange for goods and services they really wanted. Many business owners said that until the regulations were imposed, the Easter weekend was the busiest four days of the year.

Yet anti-capitalist, backward, anti-human organisations such as the 'Keep Sunday Special Campaign' would gladly have those same happy, volitional shoppers forced to stay at home against their will in order to preserve tradition.

If proof is needed that shoppers would rather have a choice to shop on Sundays or not, observe the findings of a 'YouGov' poll carried out for the 'My Sunday My Choice' campaign, (which wants the Sunday trading laws to be deregulated) - as reported in the previous BBC article.

Of 2,331 people questioned for the 'My Sunday My Choice' campaign, 57% said they should be allowed to shop when and where they want, while 23% disagreed. The campaign claims that deregulation would generate an extra £1.4bn for the UK economy and bring England and Wales into line with Scotland. The 23% would evidently prefer to have the choice taken away from them in order that nobody made more money than them. That's mental suicide if ever I heard it.

The poll executers' rival campaign 'Keep Sunday Special' says it wants to see Easter Sunday return to a family day of rest. But the poll clearly indicates that they don't want to rest. So, to force people into doing something they clearly don't want to do, is anti-freedom, and is the brainchild of nut cases.

To sum up, what we have here is a complete negation of choice and freedom. The nil by minds clamour for rules and regulations, but as per usual they fail to realise that with every rule comes another loaded gun at the head of those that break it. This is not freedom. Freedom is waking-up on Easter Sunday and realising you need to stock-up on supplies, remembering you won't have time to shop for a few days, and having the option to pop down the supermarket today, as it's your best chance.

Freedom is wanting to own a supermarket chain offering quality goods to people, at the right prices, deciding to open on Easter Sunday, and either reasoning that the sales warranted a future opening on this day, or not, but being free to choose either way.

Freedom is deciding it's time to hire extra staff to cope with the expansion of your supermarket chain, and being free to do so, pitching wages that you feel represent the value of the jobs you are offering, and either having this wage offer vindicated by the receiving of applicants, OR receiving no applicants - signifying that the wage offer is too low - and being free to offer more (or less, if the converse is true).

Freedom is wanting a job in a supermarket, finding a supermarket that is offering work, learning that they open on Easter Sundays, and the successful applicant may be required to work then, deliberating whether you would want to work on Easter Sunday, and making your final, unforced decision in light of this information.

Without choice, there is no freedom. This is what I'm fighting. Are you with me?

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

Nobility. A word once ascribed to warriors on a battlefield, kings on horseback (not to endorse monarchy) and to all-round high achievers. But now, it seems the word has an entirely different meaning, in light of those that are today labelled as such.

Various definitions of the word 'Noble' pulled from a dictionary include:

- Of an exalted moral or mental character or excellence;
- Admirable in dignity of conception, manner of expression, execution, or composition;
- Very impressive or imposing in appearance; stately; magnificent;
- Of an admirably high quality; notably superior; excellent;
- Famous; illustrious; renowned.

Yet today's 'dignitaries' and 'admirals' apparently can be found cleaning a toilet for a living, such is their moral elevation granted by society. Observe the multitude of reality television shows aimed at scooping the dustman off the street, thrusting him onto the stage or into the fake house with the other misfits, giving him a microphone and granting his 'life of struggle' as capital into a life morally reserved for those whom actually earned it. Today, you can aim low in life, but as long as you're seen to be making a struggle of it, you are noble. Ladies and gentlemen: introducing the working class!

Now there is nothing wrong in starting out in life cleaning toilets and sweeping floors (I've had a million such jobs whilst building various businesses), but every human has the capacity to achieve greatness, and to ignore this potential is disrespectful of oneself. To forfeit a life of attainment in favour of a life of mediocrity is a waste of a life. To reach for shortcuts is an admission of one's said ineptitude.

So why is bottom-feeding seen as such a noble art? It would seem that this view is congruent with that of the anti-capitalist, "To rise above your station is greedy" doctrine. It's a common view that today's world is a greedy, heart-less, animalistic arena of material bloodthirst. But in reality, it's the other way around.

It's actually the capitalist, intellectual, mindful, rational realm of reason and freedom that is the minority, today. It has slowly succumbed to the mindless, spiritual (the false kind), emotional creed whose foundation is represented by such axioms as: 'love' over reason, effort and 'right' over ability, 'need' over desire, and paucity and 'integrity' over prosperity and abundance. It's this crippling ideology that is today's 'nobility'. Let me explain.

To use an issue currently under scrutiny: underlying the vitriolic outbursts against fuel and utility 'price hikes' is a complete misunderstanding of the market and the real meaning of freedom. Due to centuries of ignorance and brainwashing it is a belief that everyone is equal and deserves the same reward.

This said anti-capitalistic monster again rears its ugly head with outcries of "Greedy billion dollar oil companies!" and "Unfair gas prices!" and "It's a crime against the working man!" The government perks up, salivating at the thought of extra votes, and imposes legislation, regulations and directives that serve to halt the price increases. The consumers are temporarily placated, but nobody asks the question: "How are the prices determined in the first place?"

If the protesters really looked into it, they'd realise it was they who had the largest say in the price their electricity bill by virtue of their demand for it giving it its subsequent value. The 'working man' makes every choice along the path to eventually paying for the apparent extortionate utility bills.

He chose to live where he lives. He chose to use electricity. He chose to pay for it. Noone forced him into it. It was he, along with the millions of other homes, that consumed the commodity, thereby increasing its demand on supplies, thereby increasing the need to replenish those supplies, thereby increasing costs needed to sustain fulfilment of the demand.

As someone who rents a property and uses a key meter system for electricity supply, I am among those that should be wailing for price cuts. Compared to those that use regular meter systems, I am paying more per year for my electricity and gas. But as a tenant, it is not my decision whether I switch to a regular meter. That is down to the landlord.

But while others wail, I remain happy, since I am conscious that it is my decision to live here and use a key meter system. I live in a secure house, in a tidy, safe neighbourhood, and I get to use clean running water, sleep in a warm bed and speak to you through a fast internet connection.

I made this possible by seeking, securing and sustaining employment in a fairly well paid job. I keep my expenses down to minimum, whilst enjoying myself, and I am constantly working on making myself a more valuable human being which will ultimately result in higher income, the quitting of said day job, and the enjoyment of a dream lifestyle. I make this possible by choosing not to be 'working class'.

The naïveté of greed is illustrated in an article, "Are Electric Scooters Really An Oil Company's Worst Nightmare?" The article explains the increased demand for electric scooters in America in light of rising gas prices. The sub-headline reads, "Thanks in part to the public getting sick to their stomachs at the unreasonable profits that the top oil companies are generating at the expense of the working class and the revised interest in global warming, electric scooters can be seen just about anywhere."

But the writer gets it wrong by failing to understand that there is reason for the profits. Who pays the profits? He does. Willingly. Unless, of course, he writes his articles from a treehouse in his pyjamas and rides a bicycle to work. Secondly, he is correct when he states that the oil companies are generating these naughty profits at the expense of the working class.

But he doesn't go on to say that it also at the expense of every person that uses their product, since the consumers are expending their money in payment for the oil (petrol/diesel). That's generally how capitalism works. He also doesn't tell us that the working class and co. are obtaining their oil at the expense of the oil companies, since the oil companies are expending their oil in payment for the money. Oil for money. Money for oil. And all at the conclusion of a rational, free choice - on the part of both parties involved.

The article goes on to say that consumers are, apparently, increasingly choosing to spend two hundred to three hundred dollars on an electric scooter in favour of lining the pockets of the "already billionaire oil companies." But he has nothing to say about 'lining the pockets of the electric scooter companies'.

The article's topic - electric scooters and the high oil prices - is largely unrelated to THIS article, but it's the mindset that correlates. It's the exaltation of the working class, the denigration of the high achievers, the denial of responsibility, the lack of self respect for one's human potential AND the confusion surrounding capitalism and the market - that are showcased in the scooter article.

What will our bemused commuters do when the road is full of electric scooters and prices go up in line with demand? Who will they blame for taking their money, then? Who will they blame for the clogged roads and pavements full of 'Twist 'N' Go's'? The saga continues.

On the battlefield, the noble man is the one at the front, sword in hand, teeth bared, brave and open - completely vulnerable to attack. He is not the man at the back sweeping the armoury and polishing the guns. Yet our simple, happy-go-lucky, whistling floor-sweeper demands the same treatment, respect and privileges as the warrior. And he's granted it by the vote-seeking state.

The opportunity is there for every human to raise their value infinitely to attract the life they see enjoyed in 'Hello' magazine - the life they so vehemently defame, yet spend hours on the sofa following on the television screen. A life of achievement requires accountability for oneself, responsibility for one's choices in life, and the continual improvement, day-after-happy-day.

It's a struggle - more so than raising a family on a cleaner's wages, but with self growth comes a constantly growing capacity for 'struggle' that correlates to ability and guile, to the point where one could take a day off to clean toilets safe in the knowledge that the bills were already paid for that month from the profits of one's expanding business. Now, that's noble.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

A friend of mine recently commented that he believed he was living his life more in accordance with my philosophy that me. This took me aback. But when he went on to explain that I contradict myself by playing by the very rules I denounce, that he was more lawless than I, and therefore more humanpreneurial, I realised how his incomprehension had occurred. And it led me to think that some clarification of my philosophy was due; this rectification will form part of this article.

First off: with my indictment against government control with rules and regulations - I am NOT promoting lawlessness. Personally, I do break some rules where I believe I'm right. In England, it's the law to wear a seatbelt when driving a car - sometimes I don't want to because I don't feel in enough danger to warrant putting it on. It's illegal to overtake on the left hand lane on highways - sometimes I do when a car is hogging the right hand lane and it's unnecessarily slowing me down.

Sticking with the whole driving theme, you're not allowed to use a mobile phone when at the wheel - sometimes I do if I have to make or take a call and I don't feel it will put myself in danger to do so. Like most developed countries, there are speed limits, here - I happily break them when I want to get somewhere quicker and I'm not putting anyone in danger.

A few years ago, I was driving about twenty five miles over the seventy miles an hour speed limit along a motorway - the M25 for those that know it. It was 1.30am; it was dark, and there were hardly any other cars on the large, open road. I'd just dropped some people off at Gatwick Airport, and I was irritably tired and ready for my bed. I reasoned that since the road was practically empty, it was safe to put my foot down.

Needless to say, eventually, flashing lights were following me, beckoning me to pull over. The officers that wrote out my ticket told me that it was my kind of 'dangerous' driving that caused accidents. Probably one of the most irrational things I'd heard, since I was nearly the only road user on that vast expanse of tarmac. The only person that I could have been a danger to was myself. Yet, I was travelling well within the realms of my skill level, and therefore was not a danger to myself.

When breaking rules, I only do so within the scope of my own ability. I.e., I wouldn't drive faster than I have to the skill to control - that is dangerous. And I only break them if the punishment is not so big that it would hinder my life purpose; i.e., imprisonment or a hefty fine. What good can I do from a jail cell? How would a big fine help me when I'm investing all my capital in my business?

I just know that when I tell you I use my mobile phone when driving, your immediate reaction is, "Oh my God! What a lawless, selfish, dangerous criminal!" But, to paraphrase what I have been saying all along: I only break laws I believe are ridiculous and that have been passed on the assumption that all humans are irrational. I only break them if the punishment is small enough to yield good value for my breaking it. I act rationally with my law-breaking. I am not a libertine, nor am I a lawless anarchist.

To use the 'mobile phone while driving' example, I will point out that a very tiny amount of car accidents have resulted in a fatality when a driver was using his phone. But it wasn't the phone that caused the accident: it was incompetence - the driver choosing, irrationally, to make a call at a bad time and not paying due attention to his driving. Yes, it takes a lot more concentration to use a mobile phone and drive at the same time, but guess what? Humans are actually capable of doing it! Yes! We are actually skilful enough to do so.

Driving fast is a skill that can be learnt. Time is limited, so it makes sense that the faster you can drive from A to B, the more time you will have there. Yes, there are irrational humans that would choose to drive faster than they are capable of doing. But they are a tiny minority. And by climbing into your car, you are making the conscious choice that you will share the road with the good and the bad. Remember what Bilbo Baggins said? "It's a dangerous business stepping out of your door, you step into the road and if you don't keep your feet, there's no telling where you might be swept off to."

Someone also recently reasoned that I must have believed that anarchy is the answer. But this couldn't be further from the truth. Unfortunately, there is a minority of irrational human beings that seek nothing other than to make the lives of the rational a misery.

It is for this reason that we need some objective laws to protect the freedom of the rational from the irrational - not what we have now, which is subjective laws that free the irrational to attack the rational in any way they please.

Ideally, we need laws to protect the rational from the irrational, not bundle them all into the same box of incompetent, violent, lawless animals, so that we end up as we are nearly experiencing now: Living a life shooting through a pinball machine, where, if you buffet the sides, it's 'game over'. Humans are brilliant. We have the power of choice over every action we can take, but the rules we are forced to adhere to mean we live with a gun to our head at the face of the 'wrong' choices - all just to feed the power-hungry bureaucrats.

And to assume a society would become anarchic without the control of rules and regulations is to have no faith in humans, assuming they are irrational. It is only because of the abundance of laws catered for every instance of human endeavour that creates more criminals, since there are too many rules to abide by to live a normal life without inadvertently - innocently - breaking a few of them.

With the passing of every law that assumes humans are by nature, irrational, comes the stripping away of freedom, and an extra ounce of permission for the government to fulfil its power-hungry desires by legally using brute force to enslave the free at the point of a gun. If you don't believe me, try breaking any of these laws and proclaiming your innocence with any amount of vigour. See what happens, then.

Using the 'UK smoking ban' as an example, recall the acclaim that the law was met with - from the non-smokers. Their jubilation was centred around the 'fact' that freedom had been granted to the non-smokers, in that they could no longer be 'forced' to breathe someone else's smoke. How they can reason that extra control constitutes freedom is beyond me.

The real solution is individual rights, accountability, self-responsibility and freedom of choice. Ideally, every human would have a choice as to what he wanted to do. Smoke? Not smoke? Drink where there's smoke? Drink where it's smoke-free? And if there were no state-run institutions such as free health care, schools, etc, there would be no problem, since noone would be forced to hand over his hard-earned money to pay for someone else's lung cancer treatment.

We are slowly being cajoled into living our lives unconsciously. The government is slowly pilfering our choices. With laws such as mandatory motor insurance, there is no conscious choice allowed in the decision of whether you feel it's financially viable to have it or not - if you drive, you are forced to have the insurance. We don't have to think. But we really must. We musn't become robots. We musn't become nil by mind. We musn't lose our fight.

But the solution is not to break the rules arbitrarily. Doing so will only allow them to exert their punishment and dump you in a jail cell for your trouble. The solution will have to be something more intelligent, more planned and rational. Breaking the rules is akin to rolling out the red carpet for them.

It's time to pull the rug from underneath them.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens