The Greater Thief
So someone stole money meant for free Primary Education, while other people stole millions of shillings which were under transit. Meanwhile, elsewhere, someone stole someone else phone or chicken. If the long arm of the law decided to catch up with the above individuals, the ones who stole millions of shillings will end up with several months in jail while the phone and chicken thieves might end up with several years or even death sentences.
Most of you will have the feeling that the judgements handed in in such situations are completely unfair, and that those who steal millions from public coffers are favoured.After all, shouldn't judgement and the law be fair?
Lets examine the 2 situations deeper. Let us take a hypothetical situation, where someone has stolen your phone, some poor man has stolen some other poor mans chicken , and probably beat him up during the robbery. Some civil servant also stole millions of shillings from the public coffer.
What is the outcome of all the above situations.If your phone is stolen, you have very strong feelings against the thief, and most people would even prefer that the thief be stoned to death, when found. As for the chicken thief, robbing the poor neighbour of their few chicken leaves the neighbour in a more critical state of poverty, and beating up the neighbour during the robbery even makes it worse, as the neighbour has to spare some hard earned cash for treatment. As for the civil servant who stole millions from public coffers, most of us only noticed it when it was reported in the news. Most of us will even never notice any direct effect of this robbery.
So, when the court heavily punishes the chicken and phone thief while sparingly punishing the million-shilling-public-coffer thief, it is actually punishing them according to the causes of their actions. the heavily hurt victims of the phone and chicken robberies will feel that justice has been done, while the rest will receive justice-outcome in the news.
And therefore, the court still remains just.
For one to be successful, one is always encouraged to think outside the box. one is given examples of people, e.g. Richard Branson and Bill Gates, and told how they thought outside the box and ended up been successful.
The problem with the above theory is that it is false. the theory suffers from the common misconception of underestimating the size of the box. To be successful, you have to think inside the box.
Actually, one has to think within the box; think of how to occupy the box fully. Richard Branson started selling records in his neighbourhood from the boot of his car. Bill Gates used his ICT knowledge to give a solution , then coupled it with strategy.
It's actually very difficult to think outside the box. So examine your box carefully.
2 people fall in love. They promise each other how much they will work to make their love last. 1 person works very hard to provide for the other person, all in the hope of making their love work.
Soon, the party working hard no longer has time for the other party. The other party feels neglected and let down, and that the first party no longer values their love, and off they go to look for a third party that has time for their love.
Thus one party fails in trying to work too hard to make the love last.
Again, most people read motivational books to motivate them towards achieving success in their lives. Most people will take this quest further, and try living their lives off the motivational books, or trying to draw similarities.
Unfortunately, there are too many variables in the life of the book author and that of the reader. It is almost impossible for the 2 to be involved in remotely similar situations. the author has different characteristics from the reader, different surroundings, different people. Like fingerprints, nothing is similar.
As motivational book authors make money, many readers will end up disappointed by how unsuccessful they did not become. As to whether they became motivated, that was not their original intention.