I read an article today that really struck a chord. I wanted to share it and my thoughts.
The article is here:
There is a comment to this article that got my mind gears turning about something I have wanted to write about for a while. The commenter asks the question “Why?” – which is a good question because it almost always indicates a search for truth. Here is my response to his question:
The aristocracy that is mentioned is based solely on the inequality of wealth possession. In my religious text there is a phrase that is often used to justify socialism and communism by some that I believe are misled, “… it is not given than one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.”
This phrase is often used to imply that it is “sin” to seek to be wealthy or rich. There is, however, one thing I have noticed about this passage: It doesn’t say that the wealthy or rich “lieth” in sin, only that the world “lieth” in sin. The inequality is merely an indicator of the indicator of sin, not the sinner.
Since I believe that I should apply scriptural concepts that condemn or define sin to myself first, I also believe that if I choose to do nothing to fix the inequality, whether I am wealthy, or poor, I “lieth in sin.”
Because of the things learned through the process of starting something and becoming a leader (which is just another way of describing entrepreneurship), entrepreneurship is the best way for me to either affect the changes in myself, or assist others in making those changes. Either way, entrepreneurship is the way I should solve the problem, either by helping others become entrepreneurs, or by becoming one myself … or both.
Also, this may be a bit semantical, but I think the clarification is valuable. There is a big difference between self-employment and entrepreneurship, though being self-employment could include being an entrepreneur. The difference is explained extremely well in The Cashflow Quadrant, by Robert Kiyosaki, and The E-Myth Revisited, by Michael Gerber.