Is Social Order Important?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi »

GEMorton wrote:
The measure of that value is determined by observing what that valuer will give up to obtain or retain that thing.
I agree that the value of anything relates to the values of other things. You still need a criterion for assessing relative values. Examples of criteria are:

God or social superiors said so.

It makes me feel happy.

It makes others feel happy.

It's true according to empirical evidence.

It's true according to deductive reasoning.

It's beautiful.

It tends to life not death.

It tends to death not life.

It's arguable that all the above depend upon the overarching criterion of the parameters of human nature.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias »

This flowerbed is so beautiful and makes me so happy that I'm willing to trade a year's labour of my gardener, plus the navvies who hauled the topsoil up this desert hill and built the road to truck in water, plus the disruption of a butterfly wintering site and the depletion of the lake so the farmers in the valley can't irrigate their crops, plus all the pollution from the fuel for the trucks and construction equipment. That's a fair bargain, right?

Personal valuation is a function of power. Cost accounting is selective.

What will you give for air? Depends on whether someone is sitting on your chest or just having their SUV fart in your street.
What will you give for a loaf of bread? A Dickens first edition? A wheelbarrow full of currency? A day's hard work? It depends on how hungry your children are and how scarce bread is.
The central moral question - asaics - is whether a society can/should organize itself in such a way that people don't become desperate and necessities don't become scarce for anyone.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: February 23rd, 2019, 8:40 am
I agree that the value of anything relates to the values of other things. You still need a criterion for assessing relative values. Examples of criteria are:
There is a dynamic hierarchy of values --- an ordered ranking of goods and evils --- attached to every agent, each of which is unique to that agent, as distinctive as his fingerprints.

For goods with instrumental value (a "good" being anything deemed by an agent to have value) the criteria are rational and pragmatic --- either x is or is not useful or necessary for securing y; whether it is can usually be determined empirically. For goods deemed to have intrinsic value the criteria are obscure, volatile, numerous, non-rational, and usually unknown to the valuer. Why does Alfie prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, and would pay more for it, while Bruno prefers strawberry?

In general, trying to explain individual value rankings --- tastes, preferences, motivators, etc. --- is chasing will-o-the-wisps.
It's arguable that all the above depend upon the overarching criterion of the parameters of human nature.
Well, given the observed variability and volatility of values among humans, those parameters impose no constraints and have no predictive power. They seem to permit almost anything.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton »

Alias wrote: February 21st, 2019, 11:40 am
By resources, I am not referring solely to tax revenues, though I wonder whether you included military spending, government contracts with private industry, tax exemption/deferments/write-offs, easements, land allocation and corporate/bank bailouts in that resource allocation. I mean also the efforts of agencies, infrastructure, law-making, adjudication and enforcement; the activities of state/provincial and municipal governments, as well as federal.
The pie chart I linked covers all expenditures, not revenues. Most the revenue comes from taxes, but a large portion is borrowed. It embraces all of the activities you mention.

The breakdowns of state government expenditures are even more heavily weighted to "social spending" than the federal budget. Here is California's:

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ca ... _pie_chart

Education, welfare, and health care make up 59% of that state's budget. Assuming the same fraction of pensions is atttributable to those activities, the total fraction of "social spending" is 70%.
On the contrary, the US government devotes the bulk of its resources (>65%) to its numerous "social welfare" programs and other free-lunch schemes (each enacted to placate some politician's constituency).
There are several interesting words there.
By devoting resources, do you mean budgeting revenue?
Yes.
Since the government produced nothing that earns money, all of its revenues are collected from the citizens.
There are some exceptions, but you're generally correct.
Do the people who will/may become recipients contribute?
In some cases, yes, but their benefits typically far exceed their contributions.
Is the money then kept in a safe until it needs to be disbursed, or is it invested - in private enterprise - in the expectation of economic growth?
With the exception of state pension funds, many of which are required by state law to invest receipts for maximum return, no government funds are invested in anything. It is strictly pay-as-you-go. The federal government cannot pay its current bills from current revenues (hence the $22 trillion deficit), much less invest in anything.
By "free-lunch" program, do you mean the initiative of keeping children well nourished so that they might learn and become productive citizens, instead of a burden on society? Or do you mean generally to devalue non-competitive citizens? because that would be the judgment of a business-oriented value-system.
By a "free lunch program" I mean any government program which seizes, by force, money from those who have earned it and hands it over to someone else who did not, regardless of the rationale for that theft. That theft is immoral is the judgment, not of a "business-oriented value system," but of anyone who concedes that all agents in a moral field are of equal status: none are slaves of others, all are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor and talents, and none have any a priori obligations to others --- obligations they they have not freely assumed, via a contract or promise, or incurred through some other act of their own.
"To placate some politician's constituency" does not sound like a hearty endorsement of democratic process.
It isn't. A democracy wherein the powers of government are not narrowly limited by a written Constitution, and those limits strictly respected, is just another form of tyranny.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi »

GEMorton wrote:
In general, trying to explain individual value rankings --- tastes, preferences, motivators, etc. --- is chasing will-o-the-wisps.
What are the attributes of democratic decisions?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: February 23rd, 2019, 3:34 pm
What are the attributes of democratic decisions?
I'm not sure just what you're asking there, Belindi. I understand "democracy" to mean governance by majority rule. Do you suspect it has other attributes that I'm overlooking?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi »

GEMorton, you wrote earlier:
In general, trying to explain individual value rankings --- tastes, preferences, motivators, etc. --- is chasing will-o-the-wisps.
Tastes, preferences, and motivators are some attributes of an individual's democratic decisions. Those value rankings are manifested in democratic decisions.

And you wrote earlier:
It's arguable that all the above depend upon the overarching criterion of the parameters of human nature.
Well, given the observed variability and volatility of values among humans, those parameters impose no constraints and have no predictive power. They seem to permit almost anything.
It's a blessing that men are so variable and volatile as the present danger is such that it has no historical precedent. I did not intend that "the overarching criterion" would be written on a tablet of stone but would be suited to the need, and right now that is probably the crude biological need for food and water.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias »

GE Morton wrote: February 23rd, 2019, 2:44 pm [Do the people who will/may become recipients contribute?]
In some cases, yes, but their benefits typically far exceed their contributions.
Which ones, how and why?
By a "free lunch program" I mean any government program which seizes, by force, money from those who have earned it and hands it over to someone else who did not, regardless of the rationale for that theft.
"The theft", and "seizure", I presume is the collection of democratically legislated tax levies, which, in most actual cases, is rendered voluntarily.
Now, to whom it is meted out:
- ordinary citizens currently, for some reason, unable to earn
- financial institutions that have gambled and lost money entrusted to them by those who did earn it
- business enterprises that are failing or have failed to compete
- agricultural blocs that, for one reason or another, are deemed to merit a subsidy
- tax rebates/exemptions/deferments for enterprises that are expected to contribute to the society
- foreign and domestic grants/stimulus programs/obligations/membership fees
- servicing the debt: interest on its bonds, bills, etc. (the biggest holder of which, btw, is the Social Security Trust Fund)
That theft is immoral is the judgment, not of a "business-oriented value system," but of anyone who concedes that all agents in a moral field are of equal status: none are slaves of others, all are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor and talents...
Ah yes. But the orientation of a society's value system determines the definition of "theft". For example, a community-oriented value system would regard the collection of excess goods/funds for redistribution at need as "pooling resources". A theocratic society would call it tithing. Even a business-oriented society is more likely to call taxes "insurance premiums" rather than theft. Many individuals and organizations attempt to contribute less than their allotted share - or nothing at all - but no entities, private or commercial, refuse government services.
..., and none have any a priori obligations to others --- obligations they they have not freely assumed, via a contract or promise, or incurred through some other act of their own.
That may be an article of faith, but it doesn't happen in real life. Sea turtles, yes, but no human infant leaps out the womb and starts making its own money and signing informed contracts. Nor do any human infants come into a world populated and run by free and equal adults. Nobody starts fresh; there are no "level playing fields" (I do not conflate the state of a given field with the ability of the players who arrive there by chance)
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi »

Alias wrote: February 23rd, 2019, 11:22 am This flowerbed is so beautiful and makes me so happy that I'm willing to trade a year's labour of my gardener, plus the navvies who hauled the topsoil up this desert hill and built the road to truck in water, plus the disruption of a butterfly wintering site and the depletion of the lake so the farmers in the valley can't irrigate their crops, plus all the pollution from the fuel for the trucks and construction equipment. That's a fair bargain, right?

Personal valuation is a function of power. Cost accounting is selective.

What will you give for air? Depends on whether someone is sitting on your chest or just having their SUV fart in your street.
What will you give for a loaf of bread? A Dickens first edition? A wheelbarrow full of currency? A day's hard work? It depends on how hungry your children are and how scarce bread is.
The central moral question - asaics - is whether a society can/should organize itself in such a way that people don't become desperate and necessities don't become scarce for anyone.
Morality is a function of all societies, and religions are what add fervour to moral tenets. Will this do to show how morality and its offshoot, legislation for cooperation, are inevitable part of what defines the human?
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias »

Belindi wrote: February 25th, 2019, 5:30 am Morality is a function of all societies, and religions are what add fervour to moral tenets.
Religion is use a stick-and-carrot method of getting each member to internalize the values of a society. That becomes problematic, antagonistic and even chaotic, in a society of mixed cultural backgrounds. That's why the separation of church and state is essential to the functioning of such multi-transplanted federations as we have in North America. The conquerors of South America were more of a coherent background and could impose Catholicism on their colonies. That still causes more injustice and hardship in the colonies than it does in the parent countries, where it's been subject to the influences of industrial Europe.
Will this do to show how morality and its offshoot, legislation for cooperation, are inevitable part of what defines the human?
Call it ethics, a product of enlightened social philosophy, and then apply the agreed-on ethical standard to legislation. But it still won't work for a disparate society that's selectively uninformed or misinformed or dysinformed. How information is deployed in the system is another function of the power-structure.

I don't put much store by defining "human" - especially if that means exaggerating the differentness of humans from other species. If you make us out to be special and unique, you won't be able to learn from the organization of other social species.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Belindi »

Alias wrote:
Religion is use a stick-and-carrot method of getting each member to internalize the values of a society.
Only, as frequently happens , when somebody uses religion punitively. When I wrote that religion adds fervour to moral tenets I was implicitly defining 'religion' according to that particular function, and also including in the concept of religion any ideology which inspired fervour among its believers.

Religions have pretty well all of them deteriorated into punitive carrot and stick social controls but they did not begin like that. I gather that carrot and stick typifies politicised religions such as Islamism and Christianism.

Our difference from other species is that we evolve not any longer through natural selection but through culture especially the culture of science which, if we survive that long, will change us into something unrecognisable from today's perspectives. It would be better if our species had stayed in Eden but that was not to be.

Regarding culture clashes within any given society, there sometimes happens along a national emergency that forces nearly everybody to cooperate. The ecological emergency we must hope will do so.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: February 24th, 2019, 5:47 pm GEMorton, you wrote earlier:
In general, trying to explain individual value rankings --- tastes, preferences, motivators, etc. --- is chasing will-o-the-wisps.
Tastes, preferences, and motivators are some attributes of an individual's democratic decisions. Those value rankings are manifested in democratic decisions.
Well, they are certainly reflected in the way each individual votes. But they will not be manifested in the result of that election. No democratic decision will embody the preferences of all voters; they will always promote the interests of some voters only, and thwart the interests of others. (If you are familiar with the literature concerning "social choice" you'll be familiar with Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which hold that no collective decision can satisfy the interests of all voters).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arrows-theorem/

Now, to be sure, the principle of majority rule is a very useful, and even indispensible tool whenever there are multiple decision-makers, all of whom have equal rights to make the decision, and they don't agree on a policy or course of action. That tool (majority rule) is ubiquitous, employed not only by governments, but by nearly every cooperating group, from the Supreme Court to corporate boards to model railroad clubs to groups of friends trying to decide where to eat dinner. All of those groups turn to that rule because their members all recognize that if cooperation is to continue, some means of reaching decisions when there are conflicting opinions and preferences is necessary. For most of those groups the rule works very well, and most of the time yields results everyone "can live with."

Political decision-making, however, is a special case. Civic societies differ from all other groups employing majority rule in the following respects:

1. All other groups adopting the rule are voluntary associations whose members agree, explicitly (such as via a membership application or agreement) or implicitly to be bound by that rule when disagreements occur. But civic societies are not voluntary associations; most members are born into them, and have never agreed to that or any other rule (there is no such thing as a "social contract").

2. The power of majorities to set policy extends only to matters germane to the purposes and goals of the group. E.g., the rule may be employed by a model railroad club to decide whether to invest the club's dues in a new locomotive roundhouse, but not to decide what sort of health insurance members must carry or how they must educate their kids or which charities they must support with their own money.

3. All other groups are united by some common goal or interest, which has drawn them together. Members of civic societies have no common goals or interests, and were thrust together via accidents of birth. (They do, however, have a "meta-interest" in common. More on that below).

4. Membership in all other groups, being elective and voluntary, is exitable --- if the group reaches a decision some member "can't live with" he can exit the group without penalty or consequence.

Because of those differences, majority rule in civic societies is subject to severe moral constraints. I mentioned a "meta-interest" all members share: They all have an interest in pursuing their own interests. Hence public policies must be limited to means of checking or removing threats or impediments to the abilities of all members to do so.
It's a blessing that men are so variable and volatile as the present danger is such that it has no historical precedent. I did not intend that "the overarching criterion" would be written on a tablet of stone but would be suited to the need, and right now that is probably the crude biological need for food and water.
What is this unprecedented danger to which you refer? Are you suggesting that we are all facing an imminent threat of lack of food and water?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by GE Morton »

Alias wrote: February 24th, 2019, 9:05 pm
GE Morton wrote: February 23rd, 2019, 2:44 pm [Do the people who will/may become recipients contribute?]
In some cases, yes, but their benefits typically far exceed their contributions.
Which ones, how and why?
Well, for example, a single mother of two kids who works as a housekeeper for a motel chain, makes perhaps $22,000/year. She will pay no federal income tax, but she will pay perhaps $1000 in state sales taxes and perhaps another $500 in other taxes. In return she receives perhaps $1500/month in child care subsidies, perhaps $800/month in rent subsidies, perhaps $200/month in food stamps. Plus Medicaid benefits which vary with health status. So in exchange for her annual $1500 in taxes paid she receives at least $30,000 in benefits.
By a "free lunch program" I mean any government program which seizes, by force, money from those who have earned it and hands it over to someone else who did not, regardless of the rationale for that theft.
"The theft", and "seizure", I presume is the collection of democratically legislated tax levies, which, in most actual cases, is rendered voluntarily.
??? Voluntarily? Really? Then why doesn't the government scrap the withholding and penalties for failure to pay? HINT: If penalties are imposed for failing to comply with some edict (issued either by government or a street mugger), it is because otherwise there would be widespread non-compliance.
Now, to whom it is meted out:
- ordinary citizens currently, for some reason, unable to earn
- financial institutions that have gambled and lost money entrusted to them by those who did earn it
- business enterprises that are failing or have failed to compete
- agricultural blocs that, for one reason or another, are deemed to merit a subsidy
- tax rebates/exemptions/deferments for enterprises that are expected to contribute to the society
- foreign and domestic grants/stimulus programs/obligations/membership fees
- servicing the debt: interest on its bonds, bills, etc. (the biggest holder of which, btw, is the Social Security Trust Fund)
You're absolutely right. And dozens of others you could have mentioned (e.g, subsidies for Amtrak passengers, local police departments, sewer/water systems, transit systems, local schools, subsidies for radio/television stations, dance troups, theaters, museums, and scientific research on the mating habits of dung beetles and numerous other questions of zero value to most taxpayers).
That theft is immoral is the judgment, not of a "business-oriented value system," but of anyone who concedes that all agents in a moral field are of equal status: none are slaves of others, all are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor and talents...
Ah yes. But the orientation of a society's value system determines the definition of "theft".
Er, no, it doesn't. Theft is the taking of another's property by force or stealth, without right or permission.

"Steal: 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=steal

That is the definition given in virtually all dictionaries and understood in virtually all cultures, since time immemorial. Of course, every thief would like to re-define that term so that it excludes, by some sophistry, his own thievery. Theft is theft, regardless of how noble the thief considers the purposes for which he will use the loot, or how popular those purposes.
For example, a community-oriented value system would regard the collection of excess goods/funds for redistribution at need as "pooling resources".
And that it would be, were what is considered "excess" determined by each donor, and surrendered voluntarily. Taking another's property by force is not "pooling resources;" it is robbery. You're indulging in Newspeak.
Many individuals and organizations attempt to contribute less than their allotted share - or nothing at all - but no entities, private or commercial, refuse government services.
People who evade taxes proportional to the benefits they receive from government services are also thieves.
..., and none have any a priori obligations to others --- obligations they they have not freely assumed, via a contract or promise, or incurred through some other act of their own.
That may be an article of faith, but it doesn't happen in real life. Sea turtles, yes, but no human infant leaps out the womb and starts making its own money and signing informed contracts.
No, he doesn't. But that fact does not burden him with obligations to everyone who happened to precede his arrival in the world.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias »

Belindi wrote: February 25th, 2019, 1:11 pm Alias wrote:
Religion is use a stick-and-carrot method of getting each member to internalize the values of a society.
Only, as frequently happens , when somebody uses religion punitively.
No. Organized religion has both aspects: the promise of afterlife/reincarnation/soul migration - some kind of reward for being good - and a threat of death/perdition/damnation - some form of punishment for being bad.
When I wrote that religion adds fervour to moral tenets I was implicitly defining 'religion' according to that particular function, and also including in the concept of religion any ideology which inspired fervour among its believers.
Okay, but that kind of eccentric definition can lead to confusion when communicating with people who use a different dictionary.
Religions have pretty well all of them deteriorated into punitive carrot and stick social controls but they did not begin like that.
It doesn't matter how they began, any more than the monetary economy depends on early barter. As soon as they became hierarchical institutions, they were instruments of political control. It's what they do now that affects current social organization.
Our difference from other species is that we evolve not any longer through natural selection but through culture especially the culture of science which, if we survive that long, will change us into something unrecognisable from today's perspectives.
Possibly. I won't let such speculation determine how I define things in the present.
Regarding culture clashes within any given society, there sometimes happens along a national emergency that forces nearly everybody to cooperate. The ecological emergency we must hope will do so.
I think it will have the opposite effect, just as WWII did in America.
You can see it already: factions lining up with guns on two sides of a street, a wall, a state-line.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is Social Order Important?

Post by Alias »

GE Morton wrote: February 25th, 2019, 4:04 pm [the orientation of a society's value system determines the definition of "theft"]

Er, no, it doesn't. Theft is the taking of another's property by force or stealth, without right or permission.
Exactly. A duly constituted government has that right of taxation, and that permission from the polity.
[no human infant leaps out the womb and starts making its own money and signing informed contracts.]
No, he doesn't. But that fact does not burden him with obligations to everyone who happened to precede his arrival in the world.
Most of the people who preceded him make no demands, but they all did leave their mark on both him and the time and place and circumstance of his entry, his placement on the starting-line and the scope of his opportunities. The people to whom he is directly obligated are the ones who enabled him to attain legal majority and those who, throughout life, contribute to his survival and prosperity.
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