About a week ago, I posted an article titled, "Who The Hell Are You?". It was all about how one defines who they are. It was a good article. But, since I wrote it, a thought has been nagging me, telling me that I wasn't concise enough with my points, and so may have left some people a little confused. So in this article, I'm picking-up the baton again, and going into further detail…

So, a few years ago, a friend of mine was lamenting about how he didn't like being single and how he couldn't 'get' a girl. Being more experienced in this field, I proceeded to give him some advice on how to change himself to become more attractive to women, and therefore have a better chance of attracting them into his life. His reply was a haughty medley of societal, brain-dead clichés. He didn't believe in changing oneself because that meant 'trying to be someone you're not', and that he'd 'rather just be himself'.

His self defence quietly infuriated me - I knew I was powerless to inspire him to change, or rather, he was powerless to admit that he had to change to attract what he wanted. From that day on, until recently, whenever I've borne witness to someone uttering the same non-specific, meandering self deceit that my friend was spouting, I haven't failed to feel a little frustrated, asking myself the unanswered questions: What makes someone who they are? When is one being someone they're not? Why do I become angry whenever someone speaks this way?

Part of that anger was due to the fact that no matter how much I philosophised upon this, I just couldn't come up with an answer to the above questions. I continued to think about it for years but couldn't put my finger on it. But as my philosophy grew stronger, reasons started to appear, and I will now put those reasons forth.

Firstly, you've heard the proverb: "You are what you are" haven't you? For years that saying frustrated me, because it seemed so abstract and inaccurate. But as I honed my philosophy, I realised that actually, that old adage was a good place to start, in that everything a person does is a projection of who they are. Every action, every subconscious thought, every word uttered - all are an extension of one's philosophy. But the mistake my friend makes, along everyone else in his camp, is to concede that who you are, is who you must remain. Observe.

The man goes to work, he constantly makes mistakes, losing his temper every time, and is not someone to be comfortable around. His colleagues tell him, "Just be yourself!" His manager pulls him aside and tells him, "You're trying to be someone you're not. Don't try so hard!" He thinks to himself, "Aargh! What the hell does that mean? I AM trying to be myself!"

The truth is, he IS being himself. He is what he is. His actions - the making of mistakes, losing his temper, etc, are all indicative of who he is right now: an unhappy, unconfident individual. What his colleagues unconsciously mean when they advise him to 'just be himself' is to be the self that every human has within him the capacity to 'become', the self that every human should aim to be: The humanpreneur.

It's in everyone's best interests to better themselves, to increase their value - to become a humanpreneur. A humanpreneur possesses all the objective qualities that serve to allow him to live to the utmost of his capability. It's this state that every human should strive for. But noone is born a humanpreneur. Everyone must become one.

Indeed, there is no such thing as natural talent, natural ability, 'gifted', or 'natural born' anything. Every baby is born a clean slate; a blank program. You are the way you are because of the way you were programmed in your formative years, until that programming rendered you conscious that YOU could program yourself, and then you took over, still possibly open to outside programming - the extent of which dependent upon the programming you received in said formative years.

So what exactly defines who you are? It's your thoughts, your philosophy, your choices, the way you talk, the way you walk, etc. All of this determines your value. And you attract into your life that which is of equal value to your own. To use an example: walking. The man wants to change his walk. People say, "Why change the way you walk? That's who you are! Stop trying to be someone you're not! Just be yourself!"

But they fail to ask the question: What made him walk the way he does right now? The answer? He did. Based on his programming. Everyone chose their walk based on the programming they've received throughout their lives. They may not realise it, but they did. That walk defines who they are. It defines their value. What if the man has a hunched-over, fast-paced walk? It displays a lack of confidence and pride - inside and out. That's who he is at the moment.

Does that mean he should keep his walk because that's who he is? No! If he really wants to better himself - as every human should - he needs a more valuable walk, one that projects confidence, power, self esteem and pride. He needs to slow his walk down, chest out, head up, shoulders back, head straight forward. When he first tries this, it won't be who he is, because he's never done it.

In the same way as when you first ride a bike, it's not you because you've never done it, and it's incongruent with who are. It's 'learning to ride a bike' that's who you are, when you first try. Then, when you get better at the new walk (or riding a bike), and it starts to become more natural - THEN it is who you are.

It has become your natural walk, and you do it without thinking. The confident manner of the walk and the attributes that define it (slow, free, tall) have served to project a new, inner confidence that has grown from the exercising and practise of other traits. And congruency is attained. This walking example is just one example of the million things you can change about yourself to become more valuable - to yourself.

With all that said, I'm going to put an end to this right now - there's NO excuse for staying the way you are, just because that's the way you are. Unless you really DO want to stay the same, you'd better move out the way of all those that DO want to strive to be brilliant - as every human should want to be.

Improving yourself does NOT mean being someone you're not. It means doing things you wouldn't normally do - things that those whom you are striving to emulate do themselves - until those things are natural, your value therefore increased, and the reward of like value - now, rightfully yours; in the process, becoming a better you.

The advice I gave to my friend all those years ago focused on acquiring traits that a humanpreneur possesses, traits that would serve him in not just the attracting - and enjoying - of a girl(s), but also in achieving greater things in life. I explained to my friend how to act around a woman (how to display masculine, leadership qualities), I told him what to say (how to convey confidence and humour). I was showing him how to become a more valuable human being.

All this advice would have meant him 'learning a new walk', that wasn't his at first. But, with practise and exercise, the walk would soon start to feel natural, until it became HIS walk, and then all the prizes that having a valuable walk such as this wins you, would now rightfully be his.

But he opted to keep his low value walk. With a low value walk, comes a low value life. You can't cheat life. And I realise now, it's this choosing of mediocrity, to deny oneself the excellence that is there for the taking, to crawl instead of walk - it's this that makes me angry. This laziness. There's no reason for it. You are who you are. But if you don't like what you have, then you must change who you are. And you can change who you are. Three things go with change.

First, you must decide you really want to change. If you've been programmed as an irrational human being, then you probably haven't read this far, and if you have, most probably think I'm a freak. More fool you. The irrational are like a computer with a virus. Any programming will immediately become infected and hence ineffective. The irrational are not a lost cause, but they need to wipe that virus before they can change.

Secondly, you must decide you really want to change - for yourself. To decide to change because someone else wants you to, or simply to please someone else - is not a true desire to change. It's a completely subjective and abstract way to live. You may as well be a satellite orbiting a planet: wherever the planet goes, you go, since you are gravitating in their atmosphere. The secret is to become your own planet. The bigger, the better. Let people gravitate in your atmosphere. The bigger you are, the bigger the satellites that orbit you.

Third and finally, changing is not an overnight occurrence. It can take a lot of time and energy to change, depending upon how deep the bad programming is that you want to replace. In conclusion, then, ideally, we all need an objective goal when it comes to aiming for whom to become. That objective ideal is… The humanpreneur. It's the best state of a human being one can be. It's individual. It's free. It's strong. It's respectful. It's genuine. It's excellent.

Aim to become a humanpreneur. It's what you were born to be, wasn't it?

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

I've often heard people say, when discussing their careers, that they "love it so much they'd do it for free." And this always makes me wonder, would they? If there truly were no way to make any money from their career, would they still do it? And if they were making no money from it, would that then be because their service or product was of no value to anyone else?

Imagine if you were a musician - a guitarist, let's say. Your music is popular, people are happily putting their hand in their pocket to come and watch you play and buy your music. You're getting paid well for what you do. It pays you more than enough to have to do anything else to live the life you want to live. You love what you do, and you say, "I've love this so much, I'd do it for free."

Suddenly, all your music stops selling and people stop coming to watch you play. You are now no longer making money from performing and recording. But you love what you do, so do continue to do it? Let's say you do carry on. Eventually, your funds start to run dry as you've no money coming in from anywhere. You love what you do, so you can't stop.

You take to sitting in a treehouse in your pyjamas, living on berries, guitar in hand, reasoning it’s the only way you can continue playing. Eventually, you run out of money. It's decision time: do you quit playing the guitar and get a job instead? Or do you make your way to tribe-inhabited lands where you must catch your food with a spear - just so you can continue doing what you love? If you're not getting paid, who's listening? What are you moving? Noone and nothing.

Let's pretend you're a therapist. You have an office with a nice comfy couch for your clients, who gladly hand-over their hard-earned money for the unchallenged opportunity to vent their frustrations. You're doing well for yourself. You live in a nice place, drive a fast car, and go on exotic holidays. You love what you do, and you say, "I've love this so much, I'd do it for free."

All of a sudden, people stop coming to you for help, and your client list shrinks. You love what you do, so you continue to do it. You move your office into a caravan - which also doubles as your home - and offer your clients cardboard boxes to sit on instead of the comfy couch. You see where I'm going with this?

For your product, career or service to drop in value is for you to allow it to do so. The market determines what you can charge for your service and how much to pay your employees. The better your product, the more the market will support a higher price, allowing you to live even better. To work for free is not honouring your existence and potential as a human being, since you're not pushing your life to the maximum.

When people wail that they'd do what they do for free, is this a dig or a misunderstanding of capitalism, maybe? Spiritualists will happily defame capitalism all day long, spouting idioms such as "love conquers all" and "money isn't everything." Getting paid as much as you can to do something you love is what being human is all about - it allows you to reinvest into your excellent life: read, humanpreneur.

As I said before, capitalism is the free (marginally) movement of product and service from the producers to consumers in exchange for equal value. Without capitalism, nothing would have any value, and so there would be no demand for anything other than bows, arrows and loincloths. There's no shame in earning money from what you do. It's a capitalist economy (although not free like it is intended to be) that gives your career the value it is giving to you, to your customers and to your employees.

Were it not for capitalism, you'd likely not be doing what you do since there wouldn't be a market for it. Without capitalism, your days would probably be spent climbing trees looking for fruit, wandering around in a robe muttering ancient spells or toiling away in squalor in payment for a stale loaf of bread. The whole "I'd do it for free" argument, therefore, is redundant.

Another point to note is that even if you were wealthy enough anyway to be able keep your therapy business running for free, it would scarcely get the business it would otherwise get if you were charging. When something is free, or well below the expected market price, people wonder why. Not only that, but for any takers of your free service, they wouldn't appreciate it, anyway, since noone appreciates something that is handed to them on a silver platter.

In conclusion, if you'd do what you do for free - the question should be, is it really the right business for you? Only you can answer that.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

A few years ago, I was talking to a friend of mine, and he was lamenting about how he was hating being single, and how he wished he could attract a girl into his life. I gave him a couple of tips and suggested he read some books and sign-up for some free email information about how to become more attractive to women.

He immediately dismissed the idea, leaning back and folding his arms, Buddha-like, remarking that he didn't want to - and didn't believe in - "trying to be someone you're not." And that was that. In my life so far, if I've heard that line once, I've heard it a million times. It comes from the same doctrine as classics like, "just be yourself" and "be thankful for what you've got."

So what does someone mean when they say they 'just want to be themselves' and what makes them say it? When is one being someone they're not? What makes someone who they are? Is it right to strive to be 'someone you're not'? What makes someone feel threatened at the mention of striving for something more?

There's a great line from the film, "Batman Begins". I love this film. I love the whole cool, superhero thing. Fighting evil, and being cool with it. Kind of like what I'm doing, here… At one point, our hero, Batman, with dramatic, over-the-shoulder effect, eulogises, "It's what we do that defines us." I have to admit that this line made me think. Is it what we do that defines us?

In some ways, it is. The manner in which someone spends their days says a lot about them. It speaks volumes about their goals, pride, ambition, personality, home life, address, etc. Imagine a road sweeper, for instance. Do you think your typical road sweeper has designs on becoming a surgeon? Probably not. Do you think he can command a room? Probably not. Do you think he lives in a big house? Probably not.

Now consider your average stockbroker. What about him? Do you think he dreams of picking up crisp packets from the motorway? Probably not. Do you think he's a shrinking violet in a public gathering? Probably not. Do you think he lives in a council (producer-funded) property? Probably not.

So with two people at opposite ends of the spectrum, how does one go from spending their days picking up litter, to making a client a cool million in a strategic investment deal? Is it possible to just throw down your broom, squeeze into your one suit that you save for special occasions, march down to the city into the first mirrored skyscraper you see, and get on with your new job of creating millionaires? No.

So whilst 'what we do' does define us to a certain extent (and trust me - it really does) - it's only half the story. It really comes down to VALUE. I've spoken about this before in terms of relationships - business, friends and lovers - and the same philosophy exists when concerning yourself.

Value attracts value. In everything. Anything of a higher value will naturally steer away from that of a lower value, and likewise, anything of a lower value will repel that of a higher value. A person's value is determined by their morals, values, goals, life purpose, ideals, pride and self-respect. A person's material wealth, lovers, friendships, business partners, home, etc, are the physical manifestation of their value.

The road sweeper lives in a council house, drives a spare part patchwork of a car and lives on burgers because he devalues himself by aiming low, and hence his 'career' and subsequent living conditions reflect this. He is not living as a humanpreneur.

The stockbroker, on the other hand, lives with a beautiful woman of clean teeth, drives a Maserati, with a gym membership card in his Valentino suit pocket - all because he values himself highly. He became the high value man that he is, from whatever value starting point (determined by his formative year programming) he was left in, and consequently attracted a lifestyle of equal value.

Value attracts value. EVERYTIME.

Humans are born to search for - and undertake - a life purpose. You can read about mine on the 'About Us' page. I created the word, 'Humanpreneur' to describe the perfect existence of a man: to honour his potential as a human, to strive for something great that asks of him his all, and to validate this with the undertaking of said life purpose.

It took me a while to find my life purpose. A lot of soul-searching. Much trial and error. Multiple discoveries. It wasn't until I was twenty-two - raw from the break-up of my first real relationship - on waking-up the following morning in the bed of strange girl after my first one night stand, and with a new business awaiting my sculpting - that I learnt of another world. A world where I was the boss.

But with the discovery that there was more out there than the society-preached mediocrity, came the realisation that I was a million miles away from the man that was to achieve it. With every two steps forward, came a step backwards. I sometimes didn't like what I found. But I was moulding a vision, and it was too powerful to let go to a fear.

It's far too valuable to sacrifice; and I won't. Anything that surrounds me now is the reflection of my current value, and will be replaced accordingly with alternatives of higher value as I, myself, increase in value. This is surely what being a human being is all about. Anything less is self-sacrifice, is ignoble AND is a concession of defeat to fear and/or laziness.

It's a sad fact that the nearest most people get to increasing their value is the qualification for, and pursuit of a career they don't really want, the justification for which is verbalised with yet another classic nil by mind idiom, "Nobody likes their job, anyway." Yep. Most people will spend years and thousands on a career they forced themselves to undertake because they 'know how it works' and it pays all right. This is not a life purpose, and therefore does not increase your value as it should.

But why will someone happily trip over their pride in their acclamation that it's noble to 'be yourself'? Is it fear of striving for something better? Is it laziness? Consider my friend who waved away the suggestion of becoming the man who would attract the women he wanted, opting instead to remain the same, honouring that time-weathered maxim befitting a tree, "If it happens, it happens."

Yet, conversely, these same people will happily, lovingly spend good time and money increasing their value in 'video game world' blasting cartoon aliens, or down the local pub on their favourite, gold-plated barstool, OR in the town bookkeeper’s, picking a winner from a pack of twenty mutts.

But in reality, these are not overall increases in value, since they do not form part of a life purpose. They are merely pursuits specialised in the act helping one to forget the importance, or indeed the need, of a life purpose. So they ultimately detract from your ultimate value, making you less valuable and bringing you closer to death in the process. Awesome.

As human beings, we have the capacity to be brilliant. We did not build skyscrapers, hospitals and computers by swinging from trees whilst eating bananas. To strive for anything less than what you're capable of is just lazy. Fear may be a reason for your short-shooting thus far, but to concede defeat to it is babyish. I've had my fears throughout my life. I still have some. But I refuse to lay down and let them urinate all over me.

Quite simply, the life that I choose and the life purpose I am pursuing, require me to be a man far in excess of the man I am now. And that's fine. Every day is another battle with my fears, and another step in the direction of becoming that man. I look forward not only to the achieving of my goals, but also of the man that I will have had to become in their realisation.

When someone says to me, "I don't want to be someone I'm not" it never usually fails to invoke anger inside me. My annoyance is down to a complete bemusement at how another human being can happily denounce any pursuit of greatness, in favour for a life of mediocrity. To live below your capability is a complete lack of respect of yourself and your time on this earth. There is no second life waiting at the hands of a scythe-wielding, hooded skeleton.

I have no time for those that wail that the 'good life' is for the 'lucky other half' rebuffing any suggestion that this 'good life' of which they speak is fairly earned, and choosing instead to celebrate a life of self-sacrificial breadcrumb-scrounging. And if you have any respect for your life and time, you should be equally as scrutinous of your human interaction partners.

So, in conclusion: who are you? You are what you value yourself. And your degree of value can be measured by how closely you are living as a humanpreneur, defined as:

1. One who celebrates his being human, respects its potential, a logician, who disregards the supernatural - living only by the objectively proven, and who validates his existence with the choosing and undertaking of a purpose designed to grow himself mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically, with the exercising of his brilliance, thereby enjoying his life in the pursual of a happiness not experienced by other life forms on this earth. 2. One who fights for the freedom of human beings, and who preaches that this is the key to the survival of the human race, its advancement, and, hence, continuation into further generations.

Any step forward as a humanpreneur is an increase in value. Simple as that. If you want the fast cars but don't want to do the things you have to do to attain them, you are admitting low value and the therefore the concession of a life without them. If you want a life of beautiful women, but refuse to change to attract them, you are admitting low value and therefore the concession of a life without them. If you want to speak in front of crowds, but lament that you are too scared to do so, you are admitting low value and therefore the concession of a life without the fruition of this dream.

With the increasing of value comes the losing of some personality traits, and the gaining of others new to you. If you want to be a speaker, and you are shy, you will have to quash the shyness with a new-found strength and confidence. Yes, this means becoming someone you're currently not. This is what life is. Grow or wilt. Be 'yourself' and you're basically admitting that you are not the right person, accepting that you choose to stay the same and thus will live a life devoid of that which you desire.

There is no shame in changing yourself - as long as it's in the right direction - to become something better. You will always be yourself. You may not be the same person at fifty years old as you were when you were ten. But you'll be a new and better version of yourself.

The man was the outspoken one in his class at school, the leader, the house captain. At fifty years old, he now runs his own company with a large staff that all answer to him. His old school friends say, "John's the same man now as he was at school. He never tried to be anyone he was not."

His friend was the shy kid in class, who used to sit at the back of the room, too scared to utter a word lest he turned heads his way and was put on the spot. His school reports documented his failure to participate in class discussions, his inability to lead a group and subsequent poor report grades. As a man, he decided he wanted more out of life, realising that the man he was currently was not going to get him there.

He strives to become the man that will get him to where he wants to get to, enjoying himself in the process, and his friends say, "Why is Scott trying to be someone he's not? Why doesn't he just be himself to get what he wants?" If it were that easy, everyone would be living their life purpose. Thankfully, it isn't easy. Every day is a battle against the fears. But with each fight comes the healing of tougher skin. So everyday is a success, and another step in the right direction. This is what life should be all about.

Take what you've got, keep the bits you want and replace the bits you don't want. Build yourself. Value yourself highly. I promise you, it'll be the best thing you ever do.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens

I bet that shocked you! English Premier League footballers, the target of so much jealousy and vitriol because of their 'spiralling' wages - and I'm telling you they're underpaid? That does it! You're never going to read my stuff again, right?

Much has been said about there being too much money in football, or about the exaggerated salaries of English Premier League footballers and those of the other big European leagues. The reason for the negativity is unclear, although the cries of 'inflated contracts, undeserved fast cars and mindless celebrity' bear the hallmark of an anti-capitalist philosophy.

But the outspoken commentators and all-round vilifiers of top-flight footballers have so far failed to ask the question: Where is all this money coming from? And by failing to ask the question, they have failed to learn the answer: From their own pockets - of their own volition.

Yesterday, Sunday 8th March, I travelled to Old Trafford, Manchester, to see my team, Manchester United play an FA Cup game. Six hours there, six hours back, in the pouring rain, to see my team get beaten by, ironically my local team - Portsmouth. Enough about that. But I still saw men do things with a football that I could only fantasise about doing - things that they have worked years to be able to do. But as I scanned the panorama that was to embrace me for the next ninety minutes, the answer to the money was everywhere I looked.

Seventy six thousand ticket-holders, young and old, all dressed in their club's replica shirts, carrying bags of gladly-paid-for merchandise, hats sporting the club crests, jackets, scarves, footwear, match day programmes, magazines, brochures, advertising hoardings, television cameras broadcasting the game to millions of people worldwide. For ONE match.

People will lament how someone can get paid such a lot of money for kicking a pigskin around the park, but, in reality, it's just another form of entertainment. It's something to do after a hard day's work, like having a drink down the pub, watching a film at the cinema, or going to the opera. Your footballers are your heroes. They're inspiring and inspirational, like WAR heroes - they fight for something you believe in - your football team.

It's for this reason that a man - like myself - is compelled to put his hand in his pocket and hand over his hard-earned money to the football club. It is because of people like these - including myself - that there is so much money in football. It starts with us. If we didn't put our hand into our pocket, there would NOT be the money in football that there is, since nobody would be spending any money. Football is no different than any other profession in this respect.

The marketplace determines the cost of a product or service (in this case, a football team), the price that the consumer (fan) is willing to pay, and the wage of the producer (footballer). All are related to one another. One factor cannot change independently of another without adversely affecting the others.

People complain about the cost of tickets to the game (to use this as an example), yet Premier League stadiums are sold out week-after-week. The stadiums are full because thousands of people have decided - of their own choice - that the ticket price fairly reflects the value of the experience. If the value of the experience were to decline - if the football team were to underperform, for instance - the tickets would stop selling.

The club would be forced to reduce ticket prices in accordance with the lower value performances, and the stadium would sell out, again. Lower ticket prices would mean lower profits, which would mean lower wages. The adverse is also true. Which is why players from the best teams drive Aston Martins. Just another example of the (nearly) free market economy, my friend.

Another barb thrown by the tongue of the Premier League haters is that footballers are only playing the game for money, and that if they truly loved the game, they'd play for free. This comment is so naive it worries me of the sanity of those that utter it.

Footballers are no different to any other high-paid professional - doctor, film star, therapist: They do what they do because, at some point in their life, they realised they enjoyed doing it, and they strove to become great at it. Their service is in high demand, and people are willing to pay good money for it - with wages being based on ability, which equals the value they offer. The argument is continued with moans such as, "Why, then, do the best players always go where the money is? The Uniteds, Chelseas, Milans and Madrids?"

If you were an architect, wouldn't you want to ply your trade with the best in town? And do I have to ask the question, which is the better team - Manchester United or Macclesfield Town? I can answer that for you. Objectively, United are the better team. They're leagues apart. Literally. You might say that the smaller teams sometimes play with more passion. But passion won't win a bean without ability. Passion alone doesn't win a football match, a war, or even an argument. Ability wins football matches, wars AND arguments.

These are the best teams, and the money they generate is the result of the market compensating them for their superior skill level - the reason for that being the collective ability of their individual players.

So why did I say that footballers are underpaid? Well, like all tax payers, they're forced to hand over a portion of their income to the government for services they likely didn't ask for - some of which include paying for the work-shy demographic to sit in front of the television they paid for, on the couch they paid for, for getting lunch-drunk on the beer they paid for, at the home paid for by, yet again, Mr Premier League Footballer, Esquire.

Well, we can ALL empathise with footballers on this point - all of us producers, that is. And if wage caps were ever introduced, they'd be underpaid further, still, since the capping of a salary is to negate the market value of the footballer, funnelling the money to another area of the market that wouldn't deserve it. Yet another example of the earned falling into the hands of the unearning.

I can already here some of the more socialistic readers wail, as they dust-off the popcorn after watching the latest millionaire-Tom Cruise, sky-high-contract-paying blockbuster, "But football is hardly a noble profession! Teachers/nurses/social workers should be paid THEIR kind of wages!" But I ask you, when was the last time you tuned-in to watch the Premier League Nurses top of the table clash at the seventy thousand, sell-out Nurse Stadium, on premium-pay television, wearing your replica Nurses United shirt?

I'm not knocking these professions - funnily enough, all public sector jobs - for their low wage level. If anything, these professions are poor examples to use since salaries in these fields are not set according to the market but, instead, are based on a government economic policy of trying to appease as many people as possible in an effort to gain more votes to feed their power-hunger. Were these jobs equivalently represented in the private sector, the wages may - and probably would - be higher than they are, now. But that's a whole other article.

And all this before we've even thrown reputedly 'greedy, extortionate' football agents into the mix. Not to go deep into this one, here - a topic of much, recent debate - but guess what: Even with football agents operating, top footballers are still playing football for top football clubs and billions worldwide are still paying to watch it. Go figure (?)

If you really do have a problem with top footballer's wages, take a long, good hard look in the mirror, my friend. You are a walking, talking specimen of that which you denouncing: Capitalism and the free market economy. The market is not cheatable; it is a mirror that clearly reflects value: sought and offered. Look into that mirror. Observe the jeans you wear, the shirt on your back, the ring on your finger, the phone in your pocket. Who forced you to dress in this garb?

You see, along every step of the way lies a choice made by an individual. A footballer. A fan. An agent. A football club owner. To disparage the market is to defame the individual who made a decision under his own philosophy based on what he wanted at that time AND what was available to him - all by his own free will.

So the next time you denounce footballers for their 'unearned' fame and fortune, just remember it's YOU who's paying for them to drive that Ferrari. I'm trying to put my team's weekend loss out of mind until their next game. They're my heroes, and I hate it when they lose. I pay them to win. This is life. I love life.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens