Big actors, singers, performers, etc. are typically (publically) biased against capitalism. In my opinion, this more likely than not has a great deal to do with the people at the very top of the entertainment food chain who are controlling who truly does become famous, and who does not. In the opinion of Gary North however, the chance that guilt has a role to play could also be an option to explore. He states that the fans are the ones who truly make normal people into widely known stars. According to his logic, since famous people do not consider the fans or their talents as the root of their success, they actually develop guilt about their lavish lifestyles. In turn, they begin to support socialist/communist models of society; in order to ease their success guilt, they support routes of life that are equal for everyone.
The reason that I do not support the “guilt” solution is because of everything I have seen happen in the entertainment industry throughout my life. To believe that fans are the sole source of success would be naïve, especially considering the blatant one-world, universal control agendas propagated through actors and singers today. I do believe that actors feel guilt, and maybe even shame for their success, but it has nothing to do with wanting things to be equal for them and their fans. Wildly famous people are not idolized for their talents; the masses have just been so conditioned to follow and flock that they cannot see the truth of the matter: souls have been sold and strict orders are being followed. Should someone famous break this mold, they will disappear without a doubt. Fame comes from the devil; the fans just follow. It is my understanding that fame does not come from a capitalistic economic model, which is why I cannot point the finger at guilt.
I believe that the reason people are okay with the riches of the famous and not the riches of businessmen is because they idolize singers and actors. Children are raised to put pictures on their walls of the voices they love to hear, rather than the minds they admire. They grow into teenagers who obsess, cry and fight over the ability to be in the presence of these famous people; but never would they pay to see a successful entrepreneur. By the time they become adults, they are so conditioned to follow the entertainment industry’s every instruction on how to dress, what to listen to and what to say that they have been bought for life. We are not raised to support successful business owners. We are not raised to admire those rich in knowledge. But we are raised to fall to our knees at the command of our favorite corporate artist. We are raised to be followers, not leaders; and this is why a businessman’s success will never be glorified in society today, but rather seen as greed.
Why is running my own business a way to guarantee my employment in 2030?
Running my own business is a way to guarantee not only my own employment in the future, but also the employment of others in an increasingly artificial intelligence dominated economy. Being a business owner would mean that it would be my decision whether to “employ” robots, or humans (or both). It would also mean that I would be nearly irreplaceable as the personality behind the brains of the business; nobody could step in to replace the top-boss with a robot unless the boss allowed it. In a world where people are growing to prefer machinery, it would be my job as a business owner to offer things that robots cannot; a personal touch. Emotion, personality, understanding, and human connection are all things that people subconsciously crave, and they will trump any percentage-increase of productivity and “perfectness” that machines offer.
I believe that the overtake of technology, while not necessarily a bad thing, is certainly a case of “you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone”. When the basics of face to face interaction become lost among convenience, society will shatter. Emotional connections through love, laughter and genuine joy cannot be shared among machines and humans together, and the very idea that it can leads people into a treacherous and depressing false reality, where relationships and society can no longer exist.
Please Note: As simple as this question seems, it is not. I even brought it to an online forum to discuss with other liberty-minded people because I was so stuck. Then I realized my fault; the question is not black and white. I cannot offer a one-or-the-other answer without more information, and so this is my take on it. I would love feedback on my response, as well as other opinions and explanations!
Is restitution to victims better for society than jail sentences for criminals? Explain.
It is not unknown that cages create criminals; according to the NAACP “the US is 5% of the world population, and has 25% of the worlds prisoners”. When we place a human being into a prison environment, they are exposed to a high concentration of infectious diseases, dangerous and malevolent behavior, and violence. They are not in a setting to recognize their behaviors and correct them; they’re in prison for punishment, not rehabilitation. Because of this fact, two thirds of prisoners will re-offend. Billions and billions of dollars are stolen from people each year to fund the degradation of society.
So, given the circumstances, restitution to victims would seem the correct route to travel. However, then one must consider, who will decide the restitution? Who will enforce the restitution? What happens when a thief steals food and then by the time he is caught, the goods are gone? Should he have no money, how could they force him to pay restitution? It would be physically impossible to force him to give up something he did not have. All of these questions it seems can be easily answered with “the government”. But, one must consider, if they conclude that restitution to victims would greater benefit society, would the government intervention that comes with it also benefit society? No.
Both of the options offered result in the coercion of another being, which I do not support. That brings me to the conclusion that these answers offer me a lose-lose situation. Sending a criminal to jail only worsens his future, and the future of society. On the other hand, restitution may not be practical or applicable. I do not believe that either of these options (as is) are going to better society.
“Online education is bad for society because it puts classroom teachers out of work.”
Although this prompt seems almost silly, many people fall into this one-sided train of thought by, in Bastiat’s words, only taking into consideration ‘the seen.’ They can take the most complex of issues and view it from one perspective only; this is where they go wrong. Of the more obvious things here, one can see that, yes – homeschooling kids (including online schooling) means less children in government indoctrination centers (elementary, middle, and high schools of all sorts). I suppose that if the number of students enrolled in a school dropped enough, then classroom teachers would begin to get laid off. However, ‘the unseen’ in this situation would be that more and more teachers are now being hired (although some volunteer) to teach children through online courses. Classroom teachers in this situation loose, but online instructors win; the students deciding to gear their education towards what best fits them also win. All things aside, it is generally absurd to say that switching from one education, to another that would greater benefit the mind, growth and development of any adolescent willing, would be bad for society. How could it be said that a stronger and smarter generation (who will soon make up society), would be a harm to society. Now, a harm to civil government – maybe, but to themselves – no.