Tag: success

How To Find The Best Career For Your Major

By Joshua D. Glawson | United States

Too many people pick college majors that they hope will give them the most out of their investment, while neither being good at nor enjoying their future career of choice.

There are many websites that can help you find careers relating to your major. Here are two:

1) Careers in Your Major

2) List of Careers and Jobs

However, many employers do not concern themselves with your particular major if that career does not require a specified area of study.

The best way to determine which career path you should take starts with self-assessment. Get out a piece of paper, or multiple pieces if necessary, and on one side or one sheet, write out a list of things you enjoy doing and could do on a daily basis. On the next list, write out a list of things you are good at doing. On each of these, do not concern yourself with career tasks you enjoy doing or are good at. Try to write as broad of a list as possible. It will also help you speak to your relatives and friends and ask them to give you a few things they believe you are good at.

Once you have a completed both lists, begin giving a hierarchical scale to each side. So, if you enjoy speaking the most, on your list, write a ‘1’ beside it. If, under the list of things you are good at, you see yourself as being the best at fixing things, write a ‘1’ beside that. Continue through the entire list, and if you have a few that share the same number, that is okay.

Next, take these now numbered lists and begin searching for careers that may or may not include your major. Once you begin finding career paths that encompass the things you love doing and what you are good at, find people in that field to speak to and pick their brain. They will most likely be happy to speak with you and tell you the pros and cons of their field while providing advice for a successful career. This may even spark a good relationship with someone who can act as your mentor to success. This could prompt you to make a change in your major, as it did for me.

If you are willing to go to college, as it is a great idea to help better your chances of landing your dream career, at least take the time to write out this list and find what best fits you as an individual rather than what your parents or others tell you to choose. You should be good at your work and also enjoy it. The most successful people are those that took their own path, not the path forced upon them.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

The Case for Libertarian Monarchism, Part Two: Monarchy and Success

By Daniel Szewc | Poland

Democracy is a failed concept. It is based on the Marxist doctrine of intellectual equality of all people, which is defied by the evolutionary principles of specialization and natural selection. Individuals vary in intelligence and in basic knowledge. In fact, in a recent poll, only 26% of Americans could name the branches of their government. These, mind you, are the people who decide, in a democracy, who the most qualified to manage government affairs.

Democracy also implies a collectivist mindset, as well as collective responsibility, which diminishes personal liberty. It is an obvious concept that for personal liberty to be practiced, personal responsibility must be applied too. But, the only way for government to have personal responsibility is via its privatization. In other words, it must become an absolute monarchy.

Monarchism is the most efficient system possible. Unlike democratic governments, a monarchy claims its power because it holds the state as private property. Often, this is implied to be God-given. Thus, it establishes property as a God-given right. Moreover, it is impossible for an absolute monarch to support socialism or communism, as both oppose hierarchy, and a monarchy is of course a hierarchy. The biggest enemy of communism, which it would favor a monarch to support, is a free, unregulated market.

Furthermore, monarchs will tend to support a free market to gain competitiveness on a global scale. Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein does exactly this. As a result, his economy thrives. A monarch looks for the best, most prosperous system, because ideological lines are not his or her goal. Rather, a monarch’s goal is to bring prosperity to the owned country.

In this case, using what past monarchs didn’t have, (Austrian school of economics’ studies and axioms) he or she would determine that a free market is the best option for the economy. For, what a monarch wants, is not to be personally rich, but rich compared to neighboring states. Of course, nothing makes your neighbors poorer than giving the firms that pay taxes to them a better deal. In turn, the neighbors, seeking the same goal, would lower taxes further.

This constant prisoner’s dilemma between the monarchs of the world would shrink governments to a fraction of their current sizes. Ultimately, the only key remaining aspects would be diplomacy, a justice system, the military and a police force. Even with these, monarchs would be seeking cost reductions. Even if the free market proves itself inferior, the systems which are most effective will still prevail. For any economic stance, a monarchy will allow for a country to truly prosper.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

What does California’s Success Say About the Free Market?

By Clint Sharp | United States

According to new federal data released Friday by the U.S Department of Commerce, the state of California is now the fifth largest economy in the world. With a GDP of $2.747 trillion, they surpassed the United Kingdom’s GDP, which is $2.625 trillion. What is even more outstanding is the massive population difference between the two, with the Golden State only having a population of 40 million to the UK’s 66 million. So how did a single state become fifth among a list of much larger countries? Two words: free market.

Although many see California as a sort of haven for liberal thinkers and progressive ideals (i.e UC Berkley), the economy of the state tells a much different story. California has seen the development of some of the most profitable and innovative companies and products the the world has ever seen. Among these are Apple, Intel, Chevron, Disney, Tesla, and Wells Fargo. These grand corporations and businesses were founded by entrepreneurial individuals and grown by the consumers to become some of the most recognizable brands in the world. They are surely the main constituents of California’s economic success.

The U.K on the other hand, has fallen from the economic graces. The productivity of the U.K, or the output the UK workforce per hour of work, has dropped drastically. This results in wage cuts, income cuts, and severely limiting the growth of the nation. Although the economy has shifted backwards, the foremost priority of the nation is to increase the number of social programs and the amount of public spending using money that the country simply doesn’t have, creating an ever-deepening deficit in their economy.

productivity.jpg

So what has caused the staunch dichotomy between these two economies? The simple answer is the free market. Now boasting its status as one of the most liberal minded countries in the world, the U.K has shifted itself into an increasingly socialized economy where social programs and “equality” are the primary focus. In fact, during the most recent general elections held in the U.K, the “Conservative” party, led by Theresa May,  vowed to return to what they considered to be “true conservative economics”. However, May stated,  “We do not believe in untrammeled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism.” (read the full manifesto here). It is this rejection of laissez faire, free market capitalism that has cause them to forfeit their previous spot on the list and be replaced with the state of California.

Although California still rests under the mixed economy umbrella of the United States, it still remains one of the more free economies in the world and its future only looks brighter. Not only is California the top agricultural state in the country, but they are also the starting grounds for the legal cannabis industry in the U.S; a multi-billion dollar industry that has nowhere to go but up in the next few years. This, and its innumerable number of industries, businesses, and individual opportunities is what has made California’s economy soar above that of nations of greater size and will continue to carry them up the GDP chart.

The success of California over Britain proves one thing: the freer the market, the better the economy. The free market is the most tried and true way to economic growth. When the market is free, the people have the power to spend their money the way they want to and look out for themselves, preventing others from having to provide for them. It is this idea of economic freedom and individualism that the greatest innovations are birthed, the best standards of living are created, and the overall happiness of the people are improved. It would be wise for any nation to employ deregulation tactics and privatize everything in order to see mass growth, but until that happens, the parasitic ideal of collectivism will remain present in the minds of the people and governments everywhere.


Featured Image Source

Thinking like a Socialist: The Leftist Paradigm

By Austin Anderholt | United States

“Never argue with stupid people. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

-Mark Twain

A good long discussion can solve many political debates. In my experience, even the most liberal, pro choice, anti gun leftist can come to terms with the most pro life, gun owning, anti gay Christian fundamentalist with a long enough discussion. In fact, I believe debate can settle all political issues; all of them, except one. Capitalism or socialism?

Every capitalist I’ve talked to seems to ask why those “stupid commies can’t just understand economics” and every socialist I’ve talked to seems ask “Why are those capitalist pigs so greedy?” They simply cannot understand eachother.

To understand this bizarrely strong divide between economic ideologies, we must understand how a debate works. Almost every single political debate follows a structure:

There is one resolution, “X” and there are two positions. The positive argues that “X is true” and the negative argues that “X is false”. For example, one resolution in the abortion debate might be that “Abortion is murder.” The pro life positive might argue that “The resolution ‘Abortion is murder’ is true.” and the pro choice negative might argue “The resolution ‘Abortion is murder’ is false.”

This form of debate can follow every political issue, except the age old “Socialism vs. Capitalism” debate. Why? Because left and right think on an entirely different paradigm in this argument. There is no “Should we have X?” because under socialist ideology, leftists demand that “Healthcare is a right!” and that “I worked hard, so I get my share!” The entire ideology of leftists will dismiss dissent as evil and intolerable.

This idea of entitlement comes from not a bad argument, but no argument, replaced by emotion.

For example, the idea that “How hard I worked should determine how much I earn” is absolutely preposterous to not only a capitalist, but a rational thinker. I read a lot of books about business, and in many of these book, always one of the main differences between a rich mindset and a poor mindset is that “Rich people know that output determines how successful, they will be, while poor people assume that because they worked hard, they will earn a lot.”

This mindset between rich and poor can be seen not only in socioeconomics, but in left and right economic theory itself. One of the foundational principles of leftism is the labor theory of value. This theory states again that “How much I earn should be determined by how hard I try rather than how hard I produce.” Again we see that this is absurd. If a man is to build a business without breaking a sweat, the free market is totally justified in rewarding him more than a man who works extremely hard only to fail. As rational thinkers, we know that without the evil rich businessmen that provide our jobs, healthcare, and services, society would cease to exist.

Moreover, we simply cannot reward people for being unproductive. A great example of this was the collectivization of farms in the early days of the Soviet Union. Rather than letting the free market reward successful farmers with the income to buy more land or hire more people (which would lead to more effective farming) Soviet leftists rounded up successful peasants as “kulaks” and murdered them by the millions. They then rewarded the poor, unsuccessful peasants with more land. This resulted in huge famines of course. Killing the only productive members of an economy and replacing them with unsuccessful failures is doomed to fail.

However, leftists don’t care about what’s doomed to fail. Leftists will never debate this issue with logic and reason. They are more moved by the sad image in their heads of the “poor homeless people” than by statistics that prove socialism is what makes people poor and homeless. This is what makes the debate between capitalism and leftism so impossible. The debate is happening on two totally different paradigms. The capitalist paradigm follows reasoning and evidence, while the leftist paradigm follows emotion.