Should I Include Reconstructed Speeches In My Autobiography?

Should I include reconstructed speeches in my autobiography?
In my life so far, I have not delivered a speech to an organized audience, eventually I will, but I think this question applies to speeches not necessarily directed to an organized audience, but really anything that I have said that changed my life or the lives of other people.  Also I think this question applies to speeches given by other people that have had an effect on my life.

When I write my autobiography I want it to be a clear insight into my life and how I lived it.  I believe that my autobiography should be accurate, but it should also be interesting and engaging.  There are plenty of ways to make it accurate while also keeping it appealing to the reader, and I do not think it is always necessary to include reconstructed speeches in order to keep the reader engaged.

I believe that monumental speeches should be written accurately as possible, with every detail included.  If there is a long speech that would be difficult to read through to the end, then perhaps it would be a good idea to write a clean summary of it and only include the important details leaving out all of the extra fluff.  When I have the option to stick with the original piece, I will not change it, but if needed, I would be willing to make a few minor changes.

When I think of reconstructing a speech, I think of rewriting it and completely changing the wording, or perhaps even changing what was said, and if I make major changes like these, I am no longer offering the reader an accurate reflection of my life.  Perhaps my understanding of reconstructing a speech is different from that of someone else, but overall, I think that I should not include reconstructed speeches in my autobiography.


Is It Moral For The State To Redistribute Incomes?

Would it be moral to grade exams so that all students get C’s?  If not, is it moral for the state to redistribute incomes?  It would be undeniably immoral to grade exams so that all students get C’s, if a student puts in the extra effort he or she has earned a better grade than a student that gave little or no effort.  This is also true when it come to redistribution of incomes, if someone spends time and effort learning and working with their job or business they should have a higher income than a closed minded 30 year old working the McDonald’s drive-through.

Say a young man studies hard and works toward his career, once he achieves his goals he starts getting paid back for those hours of hard work, and he chooses reinvests his time to continue to get paid back, he deserves a higher level of success than someone who does not even try.  Some people might say “well this other young man has not had anything since the day he was born, he doesn’t have the money to get a good education, doesn’t he deserve more?”  I understand that perhaps this second young man is not as fortunate as most, but if he wants success it is up to him to find a path to success.  Tai Lopez was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he started out with almost nothing, and he found and took the path to success.

If the government takes away money from the people who work smarter and harder, and then gives that money to the people who work a minimum wage job, in a sense, that makes everybody a slave to the government.  It is very similar to grading exams, the person who works smarter and harder with their studies, obviously deserves a better grade than someone who neglects their studies.  The people who work a minimum wage job have plenty of opportunity, they just have find a way to take the already existing opportunities.  For years, there have been people who are willing to take the reins and build up a good business, these people provide jobs to those who would rather not work for themselves.  Redistribution of incomes is immoral, and it will destroy the free market.