Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than they already have.

Well this is the way I look at it. In my univeristy I am nearly finished with my masters therefor I will be teaching soon that way I can finish my phD. When I am going to be teaching I could easily use my power of teacher authority to preach about the free-market but, thats not what I am being paid to do. My job is to teach engineering classes not economics and geopolitics. The way I see it these actors are being paid to act and should do just that. Besides if they really want to preach they could allways get a blog.

Well, my job is to teach physics classes, not geopolitics, so as you say I don't preach about the free market in class. But outside of class, if my students ask me a question about geopolitics, I feel free to answer them. This does happen. Similarly, celebrities are asked questions, sometimes very open-ended ones, about what is important in the world and for the future of humanity. I expect some would take that opportunity to explain their views - why not?

There are some who cannot separate their political views from their jobs, and that gets old. And I don't want to be preached at. But then, I am not preached at - I don't read the interviews, I don't watch those shows, I have no interest in their opinions... which is why the Oxfam America story caught me off guard. If celebrities in general are going to behave this way, and the general public is going to demand it, then we might need to consider supplying it - show the public those celebrities who are not preaching collectivism (from their million dollar estates).