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

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

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