Democracy for a Socialist?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

And, no, I don't think they can vote for Sanders because Hilary Clinton is now set to be the Democratic candidate.
Correct, Sanders is over, he missed the boat. The question now is whether Sanders can maintain the political revolution he so impressively launched, especially given that he's probably too old to run again himself. He's in line to get a high ranking position in Congress, so perhaps that will be his next platform?
Anyway, the fact that Sanders got as far as he did while unashamedly being a democratic socialist seems to me a good sign.
Agreed. At the least it means we are opening up politically and willing to consider a broader range of options. If someone with Roosevelt, Kennedy or Reagan style charm could take up the Sanders message from here, they might go a long way indeed. Everything in life tends to be circular, and a new liberal era must be coming up on the schedule before long. The Sanders movement needs the Bobby Kennedy of this era.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

Ormond wrote: Please explain to us why the Clintons need to flirt with corruption.
Flirting with someone doesn't mean that you're obligated to do the nasty with him or her. Of course things may have changed since I was exercising my flirting chops way back when.

I'd prefer, of course, that the Clintons hadn't taken those ridiculous speaking fees and donations. But I think the problem is more one of public perception than reality. My guess is that she doesn't feel any particular obligation to favor them in future economic policy. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I believe that she will do what she can to control the banking industry and Wall Street, and will try with everything she has to reduce the extreme income and wealth inequality. What are the donors going to do, sue to get their money back? How much she's able to do, of course, depends on Congress, as was the case with Obama.

I'm certainly not a fan of big corporations and Wall Street and especially the banking industry, but I son't see them so much evil as inevitable. They take advantage of the rules of business and economic laws. If you want them to change, don't expect personality transplants ... change the laws! The business of corporations is maximizing profit, and they're going to do whatever they can to make a buck. Don't expect them to act otherwise! Change the rules they operate under. The only way to do that is to elect a president and especially Congressmen who will vote that way.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Belinda »

I like your post, Wilson, and I like Ormond's even more. I suppose that we all want the good man to be the powerful man. There isn't any natural law that precludes the good man from also becoming a powerful politician, is there?
Socialist
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Steve3007 »

Ormond:
Agreed. At the least it means we are opening up politically and willing to consider a broader range of options. If someone with Roosevelt, Kennedy or Reagan style charm could take up the Sanders message from here, they might go a long way indeed. Everything in life tends to be circular, and a new liberal era must be coming up on the schedule before long. The Sanders movement needs the Bobby Kennedy of this era.
In this spirit of agreement, I'd just like to say I also agree with your assessment, in post #52, of the problems of globalisation and the fact that people in poorer countries are hungry in every sense of the word. And, for those of us who believe that a certain amount of socialism (i.e. publicly funded support for the less well off to reduce extreme inequality) is a good thing, there's the problem. It can be argued that anything which reduces the effect of the brutal dog-eat-dog free market makes us soft and un-competitive. I like living in a society which feeds and houses those who can't afford to feed and house themselves on the open market and which pays, through taxation, for education and healthcare for all. But I'm conscious of the fact that in a global free market, such a society might not be the most competitive.

The solution that you mentioned of moving ourselves up the economic food chain using education is now standard wisdom in our governments. But, unless we believe that we are inherently better at learning things than people from poorer countries, presumably even that will only ever be a stop-gap.

The only lasting solution, as far as I can see, is for the global free market to result in a flow of affluence to previously poorer countries, as we're seeing in China. But, if we assume that the global environment couldn't sustain 7 billion+ people all driving their air-conditioned cars through drive-thru burger joints, that can only mean a significant reduction in our level of consumption and income. Maybe not such a bad thing?
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13815
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Belinda »

Steve wrote:
The only lasting solution, as far as I can see, is for the global free market to result in a flow of affluence to previously poorer countries, as we're seeing in China. But, if we assume that the global environment couldn't sustain 7 billion+ people all driving their air-conditioned cars through drive-thru burger joints, that can only mean a significant reduction in our level of consumption and income. Maybe not such a bad thing?
Steve, when you say "our level of consumption-----" by "our" do you mean everybody on Earth or do you mean we who are at present affluent?

Isn't it the way of the world and basic greed that, just as there is always a more affluent elite group in a national society, so there there would always be an affluent elite society among the nations?

The way of the liberal socialist therefore would not be to aim for absolute equality between national societies as in a communist solution but lessening the difference between rich and poor nations.

Besides being a better moral choice than free trade central control of trade together with strict trading standards such as that of the European Community is I think better for world peace.
Socialist
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

Ormond wrote:Please explain to us why the Clintons need to flirt with corruption.
Wilson wrote:Flirting with someone doesn't mean that you're obligated to do the nasty with him or her.
You're dodging my honorable friend. The question was, why do they feel the need to flirt with corruption?
Wilson wrote:The business of corporations is maximizing profit, and they're going to do whatever they can to make a buck. Don't expect them to act otherwise! Change the rules they operate under. The only way to do that is to elect a president and especially Congressmen who will vote that way.
Indeed, which is why I voted for Sanders, who collected all his campaign money in small donations from regular people, thus there is no real or perceived conflict of interest when it comes to regulating Wall Street.

What Sanders proved to me is that there is no need for candidates to rely on superpacs that get tons of money from the big shots. However, to skip that corrupting process a candidate has to be sincere and trustworthy, and they must be able to articulate a bold vision. Clinton is only marginally trustworthy, and she has no bold vision, thus she needed to beg for bucks from the big shots.

The Democratic primary is now over so I will leave it behind from here out, but I do wish to remind readers that...

We had a choice between a candidate indebted to we regular folks, or a candidate indebted to the big shots, and we chose the later. So if Wall Street doesn't get fixed we have only ourselves to blame.

-- Updated July 5th, 2016, 8:58 am to add the following --
Belinda wrote:I like your post, Wilson, and I like Ormond's even more.
You are in violation of Forum Rule #2746b, which forbids the liking of posts other than one's own. :lol:

-- Updated July 5th, 2016, 9:09 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:In this spirit of agreement,
You are in violation of Forum Rule #834765c, which specifically forbids agreement of any kind at any time. Shame, shame, shame!
The solution that you mentioned of moving ourselves up the economic food chain using education is now standard wisdom in our governments. But, unless we believe that we are inherently better at learning things than people from poorer countries, presumably even that will only ever be a stop-gap.
Good point, but it's better to be competing on improving ourselves than competing on who can work the cheapest, which I'm sure you'll agree with, rule breaker that you are. :lol:
The only lasting solution, as far as I can see, is for the global free market to result in a flow of affluence to previously poorer countries, as we're seeing in China. But, if we assume that the global environment couldn't sustain 7 billion+ people all driving their air-conditioned cars through drive-thru burger joints, that can only mean a significant reduction in our level of consumption and income. Maybe not such a bad thing?
If there is to be any real lasting solution, an admittedly dubious proposition, it will have to come in the form of editing...

Can you guess......?

Yup, that's right, the nature of what we're made of, thought.

As example, it's great that the Chinese Communists (if they can still be called such) have raised many millions out of poverty. But now those many millions have far higher expectations, which will eventually bring political chaos to China most likely. All of us want more, more, more, even in the West where we are far richer than our ancestors could have ever dreamed possible.

Some of the "more" we demand is sustainable, such as switching from oil (limited energy) to solar (unlimited energy). But regrettably the nature of "more" is such that no matter what we achieve it will never be enough.

A lasting solution will come when we can provide for everyone's basic physical needs, which is achieved through thought. And....

When we can sit on the ground all day doing nothing at all, entirely satisfied with the miracle of being alive on this Earth. Which is obstructed by thought.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by LuckyR »

Gary S wrote:
LuckyR wrote:Well, anyone with an opinion about an issue in a jurisdiction that is not their own would be subject to the strawman that is your last sentence.
Apparently I made an incorrect assumption that you were implying that the winning side of the brexit vote had been fooled by their leaders and that you believe their vote was actually against their own self-interest. If that was not your meaning, then you have my apologies. So, do you have an opinion on whether or not the "Leave" voters actually voted against their self-interest? If so, what is it?

I am thinking your answer should be "Since I don't live in that jurisdiction, I am really not in a position to determine what is in those people's best interest."

And back to the OP, would you have any issues with denying the vote to people who voted to leave the EU? I am guessing that you would be against it denying them the vote?

Sorry I lumped you in with the apparently omniscient, all-knowing mind-readers who can determine, without a doubt, the reasons why an individual voted the way he did and can see into the future to determine that said reason will actually be against the person's best interest at some point in the future - which would entail being all-knowing about what the individual voter deems his self-interests to be.

Although, some on this forum would actually take exception to the last phrase there - some would simply believe that the masses are so ignorant that they (the masses) do not even have the capacity to know what is in their own best interest. And that being the belief, some on this forum believe that the masses should not even be voting - that the masses should be ruled by the elite.

(I am certain you will find several more of them darned strawmans up in their somewhere. :x )
Well, I guess it depends: if the "brexit" supporters/voters believed the 350 million pounds going from the EU to the National Health service promise or not. If they believed it, then: yes they were fooled, since that ain't gonna happen. If they saw through the charade and knew that was a lie, then: no they weren't fooled.

Of course which potential rule changes will be in someone's "self interest" will differ among different voters. Everyone knows that. Thus my post was addressing the all too common Modern situation where the rich and powerful who are few in number, find a way of convincing the many times more numerous lower socio-economic group members to vote for policies that favor the rich and powerful. If what I am describing wasn't happening routinely, the more numerous poor folks would vote in governments who would tilt the playing field more and more to compensate for economic disparity and wealth would be more and more evenly shared with a growing middle class. But that is the opposite of what is happening, so we all know that the rich and powerful use that wealth and power to influence things (lawmakers as well as the common voter) to favor the wealthy. Totally logical and understandable, after all that's THEIR self-interest, right?

I was merely acknowledging that while psychologically simple, it is a seemingly difficult task to convince someone to vote against their best interest (whatever that interest happens to be) this is true of any side of any vote in any location, I am not partial to the brexit vote, this issue did not originate there, nor will it die there. This is universal.

Having said that, I am firmly in the camp of those who defend voters, even those who fall for even the most crude trick of the advertisers, to vote whichever way they see fit. No one thinks that most poorly informed voters (low information voters, I believe they are called) will fall for it all of the time. I choose to believe that ON AVERAGE among those who actually vote (which is way, way less than 100% of voters) they'll vote for policies that favor themselves at least a significant minority of the time. Which though pitiful is some sort of pathetic "victory", especially considering the slick and powerful machine that opposes the idea.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ranvier »

The greatest challenge for the 21st century will be for the global population to realize that World desperately needs a new type of political system. The global economic crisis of 2007 revealed the systemic archaism of Politico-Economic ideology.

The left strives for equality and taxation of the rich as means of wealth redistribution. In reality, history shows that this will only result in a slight improvement for the poor but in reality the government intervention will only stifle growth through idiotic policy and excessive waste of bureaucracy (Clinton or Sanders policy). Ormond often speaks of investing in free higher education as the solution to many economic problems. That is a noble premise but that won't fix anything. We already have nearly 40% of population with useless higher education. Nearly 50% of new college graduates have difficulty finding a job within their field. When we read the statistics from the Department of Labor with new jobs "created" for a given month, with impressive 225,000 jobs in February, they don't include that majority of such jobs are for medical assistants without a college degree or private tutoring companies hiring highly educated professionals (part time) because the state and federal government comes up with ridiculous licensing requirements. I wrote in another post that California (and many other states) have difficulty stuffing public high schools with science teachers. Solution...throw more many at the problem through increased taxation, where the real problem is that a recent college graduate with tons of school loans doesn't have time or money to waste on obtaining a teaching license because the school loans must be payed now. So I hear from a local barista. Instead, the wisdom of bureaucracy will be to spend millions of tax dollars researching the "Education" problem, when I'm offering it for free :). Our Socialist licensing system is OUT of CONTROL, inhibiting job market flexibility and usefulness of a college degree. Soon we'll require dog-walkers to hold a professional license and at least an Associate college degree to properly pick up after a dog. I would laugh but this just makes me sad.

The right are the corrupt greedy capitalists that want to ruin America by exporting jobs elsewhere, getting rich in the process. Ruthless evil, in short. "They" are the root cause of the economic destruction and annihilation of the middle class. I could have more fun with this...but historically it is true that capitalism does create economic division narrowing the normal economic bell curve wealth distribution. After all, everyone can't be rich because there would be no fun in that. The problem with Capitalism is that it can't be sustainable in the long run. The main corporate bylaw of any company is to produce profit for share holders, using any means necessary. How can insurance or the internet service company continue to make profit once the market had been saturated with their product? Expend the market to new consumers. Once that's done, they have to keep inventing new "products" that we must believe are necessary for our life and well being. At the same time they must continue to cut down on costs to make the product accessible to those that couldn't afford that product before. Essentially, the developed world is based on the service industry that keeps fueling itself by "printing" imaginary currency in form of debt. Sooner or later it must collapse in ever growing deficit, where 5% of world population will hold the majority of all wealth and the rest 95% can never repay that debt.
Dolphin42
Posts: 886
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Dolphin42 »

Ranvier:

Your speech here is pretty much identical to those that you can hear from taxi drivers and the bloke in the local pub around the world. It's the "they're all cheats and liars" speech. The more interesting thing to talk about, I think, is: If you think the system is wrong how do you propose to change it?
The greatest challenge for the 21st century will be for the global population to realize that World desperately needs a new type of political system.
Great. Set out, in broad terms, what you think that political system would look like and how you would make your contribution to creating it if you were in a position of power.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ranvier »

You are absolutely right that I would rather discuss solutions. However, we would enter the realm of proprietorial information. Who knows, perhaps I will run for office one day.

-- Updated March 17th, 2017, 6:22 am to add the following --

My altruistic nature is shouting...the new system is so simple that it's difficult to believe that no one came up with it already. It would have to be implemented in phases because those in power wouldn't be eager for such change. In essence, Politics and Economy must be dominated by bell curve population distribution, with 60%-70% of middle class in power.

-- Updated March 17th, 2017, 7:24 am to add the following --

Furthermore, such changes would have to be introduced slowly within the existing Political system and the Constitution. The elite would come around eventually, seeing a new source of investment and income opportunity.
Dolphin42
Posts: 886
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
Location: The Evening Star

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Dolphin42 »

Ranvier:
However, we would enter the realm of proprietorial information. Who knows, perhaps I will run for office one day.
Are you saying that you want to protect your intellectual property?
the new system is so simple that it's difficult to believe that no one came up with it already.
I'm reminded of the old saying: "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." It may indeed be true that you have thought of a way to solve political problems that have eluded the human race since the beginning of civilisation. I'll withhold judgement on that and just note that many people in the past have also been convinced that they've found a route to utopia.

-- Updated March 17th, 2017, 1:28 pm to add the following --

Ranvier:
In essence, Politics and Economy must be dominated by bell curve population distribution, with 60%-70% of middle class in power.
This is too brief for me to properly understand how it translates into proposed government policy. Distribution of what? Wealth? Are you proposing a bell curve, or normal distribution, of wealth and stating your view as to how fat or thin the curve should be? If so, what policies are you going to use to enforce this desired wealth distribution? Taxation?

-- Updated March 17th, 2017, 1:29 pm to add the following --

Also: how do you define "middle class" and what do you mean by them being "in power"?
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ranvier »

Yes, I would want to protect my intellectual property. That's what we do. We are still simple animals and if I say..."hey guys I found a new water source, we're saved, no one has to die of thirst" By the time I return there, the water is already bottled and sold at $1.99 per bottle.

You pose excellent questions and I would love to engage to answer but it's what I said before, people can't help themselves to corrupt any good idea unless you do it yourself. The principle of bell curve can be seen everywhere in nature for anything from resistance to infection to throwing a dart at the target on the wall. Average by definition, "middle class" should be in the range of 60%-70% of population . Anything else is a premeditated skewing of that normal distribution. Our global economy is a good example with pyramid structure of wealth distribution, regardless of the economic data nonsense we're fed. Common sense dictates that majority of elderly (retired) population lives in poverty, plus children, unemployed, underemployed, imprisoned population will result in close to 50% of population. That is not a normal bell curve. For the past 25 years the middle class keeps shrinking globally sending very few to the upper echelon but most to lower class, in spite of continued rise in higher education since WWII.

The normal bell curve is difficult to produce here and many will have different opinion on how "fat or thin" the curve should be but in my opinion it would be based on the circumference of a circle, 17% lower class, 66% middle class, 17% upper class.

Middle class can be categorized on the basis of wealth, education, and social standing. Wealth can be calculated by adding minimum income of poor class with average elite divided by 2, where most CEO's make $250k and up + minimum income in US ($8.75 per hour x 40 work hours/week = $1,400 per month = around $17K a year before taxes). This will give about $130k for average middle class individual. Education, 40% of population has a college degree and up to postgraduate and PhD or MD. This should mean that anyone with a college degree should be in the middle class. Social standing, this is difficult to define but needless to say that people holding a college degree shouldn't drive for UBER or be forced to work as a waitress, typically entry level positions.

In proposed type of system, the government reflects the needs and skills of the population not the other way around. I want to say more but I will only say that it's a role reversal system based on accountability. At the current moment we're convinced by someone to give them $100 to go and make purchases for us for a week's worth of groceries but they return with a can of Pepsi ($0.99) + a battle of ketchup ($2.99) + bag of chips ($4.25) but no one ever asks what happened to the rest of $91.77, even if we imagine extreme operational costs. We are almost better off with Anarchy and walking into a dark alley to pay 30% of "protection" cost to pass through on a way to work. Instead of fighting the human greed, we must embrace it to work for the middle class.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by -1- »

17% Lower Class can't vote Brexit Exit, because they would be outvoted by the "thinking, smart" middle- and upper classes.

I would rather divide the population into classes by IQ: those above the average would be upper-class, those below average would be lower class, and the remaining middle, middle-class.

Tying classes to education is dodgy; no upper class person needs to and does achieve Ph.D. designation in any discipline. It works for separating the middle class out, but the lower and the upper class are left in the same bin, so to speak.

The advantage of average-IQ classifying is that you never have to adjust the scale. If you tie the classes to income, then you have to adjust to inflation. If you tie it to age, you have new and emerging classes with newborns one born every minute, and one exiting on the other end of the scale. If you tie it to suave, to laisses-faire, to highest level of bonvivantism attained, to panache, to ennui, or to blase, then you are on the right track.

High classes are classy, middle-classes are meddling, and lower classes are struggling with basic spelling and math.

In conclusion: there is more than one way to cut a cookie; but in the end, no matter how you slice it, it's still baloney.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

Where does Donald Trump fit on those scales? Do we classify him by wealth, by intelligence, or by class?
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ranvier »

Elite by wealth and holdings but middle class by education with his Bachelor in Science degree from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. This would arguably position Donald Trump in an upper class, especially as he will go into the history as the 45th president of the United States.

-- Updated March 19th, 2017, 2:32 pm to add the following --

I think that the Sociological classification of people is based on the cumulative impact on the society, positive or negative. Although, historically wealth had been the greatest influence on one's social standing within the society, such as the term "new money" that propelled colonial citizens to upper class. In modern popularized higher education system anyone can have a college degree without any significant improvement in one's social standing.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

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