Is fare dodging morally just?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Beholdandthink
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:25 pm

Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Beholdandthink »

Hi everybody, since this is my first post on here, let me introduce myself to you shortly.

I come from Germany, am 18 years old, and have come into contact with philosophy a year or two ago, and, if only sporadically, it certainly has helped me form my opinions in a rationally sound manner, if that is even entirely possible for a human being.

Anyways, in the last few days, I've pondered quite a bit over the concept of fare dodging, because whenever I meet with my buddy, we are taking the public subway, since there is no better option.
I initially wrote my thoughts down in german, just to bring all of my approaches to virtual paper as quickly as possible. In an attempt to justify my positive feelings toward fare dodging, I found 2 main arguments, considering you subscribe to the underlying principles which are used as premises. I couldn't find much about that topic online, and since I thought about this intensely for only 30 minutes, while doing a little research, chances are high that my arguments might be flawed. But the mutual discussion with all of you, I think, should lead to a better conclusion, than to just contemplate that idea myself.

Ok, let's start.

Fare dodging isn't theft. By not buying a ticket, I simply use their service without paying, and might reduce their possible profits, but that can hardly be considered morally wrong, since they are responsible to finance themselves, not I, nor have I agreed to do so. Theft is obviously wrong, since it violates personal rights such as property rights, but even if fare dodging were considered theft, If you choose to act in a reciprocal manner, then stealing from the state, who steals from you every month, would be just.
Here in Germany, the subways are owned by the government, and therefore entirely payed for coercively by the taxpayer, so the public transportation is getting shoved down everyones throats, whether you use it, or not. I never signed a contract, a mutual agreement never existed, I was never asked, an strongly disapprove of funding the subways with my tax dollars, so it is obviously unjust. Why should I pay for public transportation voluntarily, when I am already forced to do it through my tax dollars. And even if none of my taxes were to be used for public transportation, then the fact alone that the government owns the subway, and the government steals my money, would suffice to justify me not paying for their services, since they violate the non aggression principle everyday. Again, let alone there is no contract, and they merely threaten you with monetary penalties, so no obligation exists to pay.

Thank you for reading all of that, hopefully you can contribute your thoughts.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Sy Borg »

Beholdandthink wrote:Fare dodging isn't theft. By not buying a ticket, I simply use their service without paying
Using a service without paying is theft of the service.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Nick_A »

Beholdandthink wrote:Hi everybody, since this is my first post on here, let me introduce myself to you shortly.

I come from Germany, am 18 years old, and have come into contact with philosophy a year or two ago, and, if only sporadically, it certainly has helped me form my opinions in a rationally sound manner, if that is even entirely possible for a human being.

Anyways, in the last few days, I've pondered quite a bit over the concept of fare dodging, because whenever I meet with my buddy, we are taking the public subway, since there is no better option.
I initially wrote my thoughts down in german, just to bring all of my approaches to virtual paper as quickly as possible. In an attempt to justify my positive feelings toward fare dodging, I found 2 main arguments, considering you subscribe to the underlying principles which are used as premises. I couldn't find much about that topic online, and since I thought about this intensely for only 30 minutes, while doing a little research, chances are high that my arguments might be flawed. But the mutual discussion with all of you, I think, should lead to a better conclusion, than to just contemplate that idea myself.

Ok, let's start.

Fare dodging isn't theft. By not buying a ticket, I simply use their service without paying, and might reduce their possible profits, but that can hardly be considered morally wrong, since they are responsible to finance themselves, not I, nor have I agreed to do so. Theft is obviously wrong, since it violates personal rights such as property rights, but even if fare dodging were considered theft, If you choose to act in a reciprocal manner, then stealing from the state, who steals from you every month, would be just.
Here in Germany, the subways are owned by the government, and therefore entirely payed for coercively by the taxpayer, so the public transportation is getting shoved down everyones throats, whether you use it, or not. I never signed a contract, a mutual agreement never existed, I was never asked, an strongly disapprove of funding the subways with my tax dollars, so it is obviously unjust. Why should I pay for public transportation voluntarily, when I am already forced to do it through my tax dollars. And even if none of my taxes were to be used for public transportation, then the fact alone that the government owns the subway, and the government steals my money, would suffice to justify me not paying for their services, since they violate the non aggression principle everyday. Again, let alone there is no contract, and they merely threaten you with monetary penalties, so no obligation exists to pay.

Thank you for reading all of that, hopefully you can contribute your thoughts.
Fare dodging is morally just if you are an illegal alien. It is immoral if you are a tax paying citizen. It is the progressive way.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
Beholdandthink
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:25 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Beholdandthink »

Greta wrote:
Beholdandthink wrote:Fare dodging isn't theft. By not buying a ticket, I simply use their service without paying
Using a service without paying is theft of the service.
But simply taking advantage of a service that exists whether if I want it to or not, can't be categorized as theft, because nothing was stolen.
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Present awareness »

Why not turn the situation around?

If your employer decided to quite paying you for your services, he might reduce your profits but that can hardly be considered morally wrong, since he's in business to make money for himself.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Sy Borg »

Beholdandthink wrote:
Greta wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Using a service without paying is theft of the service.
But simply taking advantage of a service that exists whether if I want it to or not, can't be categorized as theft, because nothing was stolen.
Effectively a little taxpayer money was stolen.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Beholdandthink:

Here in Germany, the subways are owned by the government, and therefore entirely payed for coercively by the taxpayer, so the public transportation is getting shoved down everyones throats, whether you use it, or not.
One does not need to use the service to benefit from it. Without it there would be more cars, more pollution, more money going to roads, more traffic, more accidents.
But simply taking advantage of a service that exists whether if I want it to or not, can't be categorized as theft, because nothing was stolen.
Theft is not limited to tangible goods. If no one paid then either taxes would increase to cover costs or service would cease and taxes would go up to cover the additional costs of more cars on the road. Unless you have a convincing argument as to why you and not others should be exempt from paying, you have the same obligation to pay as anyone else using the system.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by LuckyR »

Beholdandthink wrote:Hi everybody, since this is my first post on here, let me introduce myself to you shortly.

I come from Germany, am 18 years old, and have come into contact with philosophy a year or two ago, and, if only sporadically, it certainly has helped me form my opinions in a rationally sound manner, if that is even entirely possible for a human being.

Anyways, in the last few days, I've pondered quite a bit over the concept of fare dodging, because whenever I meet with my buddy, we are taking the public subway, since there is no better option.
I initially wrote my thoughts down in german, just to bring all of my approaches to virtual paper as quickly as possible. In an attempt to justify my positive feelings toward fare dodging, I found 2 main arguments, considering you subscribe to the underlying principles which are used as premises. I couldn't find much about that topic online, and since I thought about this intensely for only 30 minutes, while doing a little research, chances are high that my arguments might be flawed. But the mutual discussion with all of you, I think, should lead to a better conclusion, than to just contemplate that idea myself.

Ok, let's start.

Fare dodging isn't theft. By not buying a ticket, I simply use their service without paying, and might reduce their possible profits, but that can hardly be considered morally wrong, since they are responsible to finance themselves, not I, nor have I agreed to do so. Theft is obviously wrong, since it violates personal rights such as property rights, but even if fare dodging were considered theft, If you choose to act in a reciprocal manner, then stealing from the state, who steals from you every month, would be just.
Here in Germany, the subways are owned by the government, and therefore entirely payed for coercively by the taxpayer, so the public transportation is getting shoved down everyones throats, whether you use it, or not. I never signed a contract, a mutual agreement never existed, I was never asked, an strongly disapprove of funding the subways with my tax dollars, so it is obviously unjust. Why should I pay for public transportation voluntarily, when I am already forced to do it through my tax dollars. And even if none of my taxes were to be used for public transportation, then the fact alone that the government owns the subway, and the government steals my money, would suffice to justify me not paying for their services, since they violate the non aggression principle everyday. Again, let alone there is no contract, and they merely threaten you with monetary penalties, so no obligation exists to pay.

Thank you for reading all of that, hopefully you can contribute your thoughts.
Rationalize much?

The logic does not flow from your first idea (Theft of a service is not theft because a service is not tangible.) A curious theory, but an archaic one, especially for a teenager. Let me guess you torrent first run movies, right?
Your second statement, that you are not responsible for financing the public transportation system, is indeed correct. It's similarly correct corollary is that the public transportation system is not obligated to take you anywhere without a ticket being purchased by you, either.
Your third idea, that the fact you were not consulted when the rail system was built (before you were conceived, BTW), while true enough is illogical since you are a consuming member of the community, yet you act surprised when membership in the community comes with some responsibilities in addition to the perks. In order to make that statement logical you should go off the grid, that is, become a hermit. Then you will truly not be a member of the society and can logically keep all of your tax income... oh except that you won't have any income since in order to free yourself from your unrequested societal burdens you should also give up societal benefits, like the Internet, the monetary system, roads, electricity, sewer and water.
Your fourth idea that the government "steals" from you (and everyone else) suffers from a lack of understanding of what the "government" is. The government are the people that the citizenry hire to do the work that needs being done in the various areas that they are hired to take on. So the collective German "we" decided that we want to have a public transportation system. So does it make logical sense to pay for the system that the people want to have? Of course it does, I know you know that already, but essentially that is what you are implying. But wait, you say, I wasn't asked about the public transport system. Well, you were in fact asked. By "you" I mean the collective German citizenry through their choice to elect representatives who are supposed to relay your opinion. So essentially you are the government, so how can you steal from yourself? The metaphor doesn't work. Similarly the government may own the subway, but since you are the government, you own the subway, hence why you are (in part) responsible for paying for it's upkeep etc.
Your fifth idea that since you pay taxes that you shouldn't pay fares, is a choice that the government (indirectly you) made to have those who use the service pay more (fares and taxes) than those who don't (taxes only). That user fee type thing, should appeal you your sense of personal responsibility, right?

Would you be having this same argument about the sewage system that runs to your home? So you'd be cool being disconnected from the sewer system, since you shouldn't have to pay a fee and taxes?

Bottom line, you get what you pay for. Nothing is free. Everyone knows that for private interactions you must pay for what you get. No one would expect a car for free. OTOH, there is something about public sector issues where folks expect public services but call the taxes to pay for them "stealing" instead of paying.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Takerian
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 6:36 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Takerian »

LuckyR: Great response.
User avatar
Beholdandthink
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:25 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Beholdandthink »

As a reply to LuckyR:

Well, by downloading copyrighted material, I'm not stealing. You might say that I could cause the company to lose possible profits, but that can hardly be proven, and even if it could, this can't be considered immoral, since the company is responsible for their income. Regarding the obscure concept of "intellectual property", this is in my opinion a highly subjective invention used as an excuse to stifle competition. Of course the PTS (public transportation system) isn't obligated to carry me anywhere, but since this is state funded, and thus funded by you, me, and most others, I think I indeed should be able to use their service, since they are already handling immoral by forcefully taking our resources and using them to operate the PTS.

I never chose to be part of the "community" whatever you specifically mean by that, nor do I feel entitled to the perks without paying for them. There is a huge difference between voluntary free market exchanges and forced government programs. The tax money doesn't go toward society, it goes to the government first. And you can't do good by spending money which is stolen, even it it may be for good causes. A great society can exist without government. A great portion of the "citizenry" as you like to call it, doesn't hire the people in government. We have many non voters in our country. If you want to be ruled by people, I have no problem with that. But I don't. Your reasoning is based on a heavily collectivistic ideology, viewing the people as a giant faceless mass, and denying the individual his or her sovereignty. The government is a relatively small group of individuals ruling over the populace. No, I was not asked. I am not the government. What you are implying here is insane, and I think deep down you know that. I'd pay for the sewage system out of necessity and voluntarily if it was private owned, so this wouldn't be an issue without the government, it would simply be in private hands. I don't expect public service, and don't want it. I'd much rather pay to use a privately owned transportation system, but since the state charges abhorrent fees for competing with the PTS if not downright prohibiting it to some extent, private companies are not able to compete, thus the state creates a monopoly, and I have no choice but to use their service or drive myself.

Your whole argument is essentially permeated by the notion that everybody loves the government and voluntarily pays their taxes, instead complying out of fear of punishment and prison.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Beholdandthink:
Well, by downloading copyrighted material, I'm not stealing.
Is taking a physical object made by someone else without permission of the owner stealing? One argument that is made is that there is a difference because no one else loses possession of the material. But at least one person loses the right to profit from the making, production, and distribution of that material, and that is what a copyright is intended to protect.
Regarding the obscure concept of "intellectual property", this is in my opinion a highly subjective invention used as an excuse to stifle competition.
It is not an obscure concept. If I am a musician, for example, I have a choice whether to give away my music for free or seek compensation for what I produce. I may seek compensation because I value things like eating and without compensation I might not be able to continue making and selling my music. Now you might imagine some faceless corporation with deep pockets losing out and this might be part of the distribution chain, but without this chain that music might not be available at all. It defies logic to say it is not immoral because the company is responsible for their income. You are taking away the means by which they generate their income. This is like saying it is not immoral to take something that does not belong to you because someone left the door open.
Of course the PTS (public transportation system) isn't obligated to carry me anywhere, but since this is state funded, and thus funded by you, me, and most others, I think I indeed should be able to use their service, since they are already handling immoral by forcefully taking our resources and using them to operate the PTS.
If the service is entirely funded by tax dollars then an argument can be made that it should be a free service to taxpayers, but if it requires fares in order to operate then your argument that you should not have to pay your share fails. The fare is a user fee and comparable to a sales tax. It is a source of revenue to the state. If your position is that you should not have to pay any tax or should be able to decide where your tax dollars go then make the argument rather than complicate matters by bringing in public transportation fees.
A great society can exist without government.
This is a different issue. You will find some sympathy here for anarchism, but again, it would be better to address that issue specifically in a thread devoted to that topic.
… denying the individual his or her sovereignty.
Like it or not, there are limits to your individual sovereignty as long as you live in society.
I don't expect public service, and don't want it.
If all public services were to be suspended it would not be long before you realized how much you depend on them and really do want them. You might start by identifying what those public services are that are provided to you in order to see just how integral they are to your life.
User avatar
Beholdandthink
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:25 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Beholdandthink »

It is not an obscure concept. If I am a musician, for example, I have a choice whether to give away my music for free or seek compensation for what I produce. I may seek compensation because I value things like eating and without compensation I might not be able to continue making and selling my music. Now you might imagine some faceless corporation with deep pockets losing out and this might be part of the distribution chain, but without this chain that music might not be available at all. It defies logic to say it is not immoral because the company is responsible for their income. You are taking away the means by which they generate their income. This is like saying it is not immoral to take something that does not belong to you because someone left the door open.
I am not taking away their means to generate their income, in fact i am not taking anything away. How can my non-participation in their business make their means of generating income completely null and void, when there are still millions of customers voluntarily paying for their music? And even if everyone were to act like me and download digital copies on the internet without paying them, we are still not taking their means to generate income away, our decisions simply affect the rate of success of their means, like selling their music only for a fixed price. They would be urged to market their music through more effective means, like offering their music for free and asking for donations. If their music is in fact good and widely appreciated, then the chance, that they would make even more money than through selling their music for 10$ a piece remains, enabling them to even increase their profits without limits. If nobody wants to pay, then might have to work at their marketing strategy, or maybe the quality of their music. Not everybody can be a winner, and only demand creates profit.

Your comparison is utterly false and irrational, since stealing tangible property from your unsuspecting neighbour is THEFT, while downloading digital copies on the internet harms nobody, except greedy and immoral lawyers as well as POSSIBLY the profits of bad artists, who can't deal with the fact that nobody wants to buy their music at set prices. Let's say you drew a beautiful picture and showcased it to me and my friends. Some of my friends were so impressed by your artistic capabilities, that they just had to take a picture. Later, they want to share their pictures of your artwork with their friends. Now you charge 2$ a minute for looking at your picture, and 10$ for looking at it indefinitely. You now demand that my friends stopped sharing their pictures of your drawing, and threaten them with legal action and possibly jail. They did nothing with your property, the pictures of your property don't belong to you, just as the copies of your music made by other people don't belong to you.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Beholdandthink:
I am not taking away their means to generate their income, in fact i am not taking anything away. How can my non-participation in their business make their means of generating income completely null and void, when there are still millions of customers voluntarily paying for their music?
First of all, not every musician has millions of customers. Second, suppose that half those customers thought as you do, the income would be cut in half. If all thought as you do there would be no income at all. Your benefit from others doing the right thing.
And even if everyone were to act like me and download digital copies on the internet without paying them, we are still not taking their means to generate income away, our decisions simply affect the rate of success of their means, like selling their music only for a fixed price. They would be urged to market their music through more effective means, like offering their music for free and asking for donations.
There is no effective means of generating income if no one pays. The donation model may work for some but only if people are willing to pay through donation. If someone is unwilling to pay for a legal copy why would we assume that they would be willing to donate or donate enough? Again you are relying on someone else to do the right thing.

It should be up to the performer whether they want to rely on donations or sell their music. If they decide to sell and no one wants the music enough to buy it that is one thing, but wanting the music and getting it without paying for it is quite another. The only difference is with downloads you are not stealing a tangible item. The economic impact is the same. If someone is selling something and you want it then you should pay for it. To take it without paying for it is theft. It does not matter if the music is presented in concert, vinyl, CD, or download. You may rationalize sneaking into a concert without paying since there is no tangible object and the concert would happen whether you paid or not, but that ignores the economic impact of not paying for the show. You might claim that they should not be selling tickets, concerts should be free with the option of donation, but that may not be a sustainable model and again should not be up to the consumer to decide.

By your logic one one could steal a physical copy and then argue that the CD should be given away with the option of donation. This could then be extended to all kinds of things. You shouldn’t have to pay for food, it should be free with the option of donation. You should not have to pay for clothing, it should be free with the option of donation. After all more food and clothing are produced than are sold, and so it is not as if by you taking it someone else cannot have it.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is fare dodging morally just?

Post by -1- »

There are two kinds of morals. One of the two is what you feel in your heart and what you think is just, fair, and moral. The other one is what society expects you to observe as a behaviour code.

Society expects you to honour those contracts which are forced on you. You may declare those contracts null and void. Because of your own moral code.

Most people fulfil their contractual obligations even when they were not party to creating or initially agreeing to the terms of the contract. This is so because the law stands behind the other party of the contract.

In your own right, you do what is morally acceptable to you. If you feel you are not morally liable to pay your subway fare, so be it. Nobody can enforce you to feel morally this way or that way. That is an innate quality. Plus you, yourself, don't have power over what you consider morally just and morally unjust.

So you are doing the right thing when you break the rules and don't pay your fare, but only as judged by your own moral code.

However, you can't reason it, and force other people to accept your moral code, even as a defence why you don't pay your fare. You have autonomy over your moral code, and so do others; you have no power over your own moral code, and so don't others, either. If you think what you do is moral, and they think it's not, then they will try to force you to behave according to their moral code, much like you are trying society to accept your moral code (via reasoning).

However, reasoning as a convincing tool is useless in this instance, as inner morality is not in your power to change in yourself or in others, be it with reasoning, with force, with punishment, with reward, or not.

Inner moral feelings can't be changed. Outer behaviour can. That's where society's morals trump inner, individual's own morality when it comes to behaviour. Society has much more many and much more effective means to make you act against your own morals, to suit society's morals, than you have means to affect society how they should shape their expectations of its individual members' behaviour.

And that's where the buck stops. Your inner morality is yours, nobody can take it away from you; however, aligning your outer morality as portrayed by behaviour with society's morality is more conducive to your life in most instances, if there is a conflict or discrepancy between the two, than your own, inner morality to obey in your behaviour.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021