The political field

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: The political field

Post by Arjen »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 8th, 2020, 4:01 pm Following principles to logical extremes shouldn't be conflated with actual political views considered "left," "right" or whatever. Actual political views are far more complex and nuanced--or less charitably, they're far more messy and at least seemingly contradictory in some respects. They also tend to differ from country to country, and even region to region, social milieu to social milieu within the same country, where they're shaped by the unique histor, practical issues and social interactions of the area/milieu in question.
I agree with you in the sense of the differentiation through peoples and area's and political views. However, here we can discuss some philosophically "pure" ideas, I thought :)

h_k_s Terrapin Station Man With Beard Could you answer the following, by the way, I am trying to collect thoughts and opinions on it:
Arjen wrote: The other day I heard someone discuss the political field in an original way. Where I am used to divide political opinions into left and right, with on both ends a totalitarian model (national socialism and communism), this person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing. I did argue this before, given that both are forms of fascism and contain an extreme of socialism. It surprised me, because, to be honest, I do like a touch of socialism, but not the extreme forms. The argument was that on the left side, we see a strong and large government, while on the right side, we see smaller governments with less laws. The extreme right therefore should be anarchism.
Thanks in advance.
Mr D. Ripper wrote: Unrestricted capitalism would be disastrous for regular people wanting utilities.

Believing that unrestricted capitalism will regulate itself is just magical thinking.
I am thinking that it isn't actually anarchy (free market, capitalism, whatever :P) that causes this problem. In a complete anarchy, a megacorp can't exist. That requires structure and a social cohesion. It needs either power or wealth to make that happen.

However, in a complete anarchy, and given a need to accomplish something, such organisations will be created! Which is quite likely going to be totalitarian. By force, bribes or promises, likely, it will come into existence. And, it has done so in reality. Ordo ab Chao and such. And, what's more, from the extreme right (anarchy, to follow that thought) perspective, that totalitarian structure has to be considered left. It is a social cohesion, at least. It is an argument for that theory, I think.

*disclaimer*
I am actually a proponent of social rules to limit the effect of force or cons on the population. The above might make you think something else :)
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: The political field

Post by Arjen »

h_k_s wrote: October 8th, 2020, 4:55 pm So are you impressed yet? Or do I need to throw more verbiage at you?

At any rate, Plato and Aristotle are our primary philosophical sources. Herodotus also summaries the pro's and con's of democracy versus monarchy in comparing the Athenians with the Persians.
I like your description. It is quite good in many ways. But, I am looking for an answer in my quest :) (see the above post).

Thanks in advance!
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: The political field

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Arjen wrote: October 8th, 2020, 5:35 pm...
Mr D. Ripper wrote: Unrestricted capitalism would be disastrous for regular people wanting utilities.

Believing that unrestricted capitalism will regulate itself is just magical thinking.
I am thinking that it isn't actually anarchy (free market, capitalism, whatever :P) that causes this problem. In a complete anarchy, a megacorp can't exist. That requires structure and a social cohesion. It needs either power or wealth to make that happen.
...

You are confusing your terms. "Anarchy" and "capitalism" are not interchangeable or equivalent terms. In fact, they are mutually exclusive (i.e., they cannot both be at the same time and place).

anarchy

NOUN

mass noun
1 A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.

2 Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/anarchy

capitalism

NOUN

mass noun
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/capitalism


Capitalism presupposes that there is a government, which means there is not anarchy, because anarchy is the absence of a government.


Complete anarchy would be Thomas Hobbes' famous "state of nature", described here in a famous passage from Chapter XIII of Leviathan, with some archaic spellings of words (it is an old text; "Warre" is now spelled "War", "continuall" is now spelled "continual", "feare" is now spelled "fear", "poore" is now spelled "poor"):
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm

Hobbes is describing a theoretical time before any government ever existed, not an anarchy after one has had a government. It is not necessarily an accurate description of any actual time; he is not claiming this is history. According to Hobbes, it is to get out of being in such a condition that people form governments and give up some of their liberty. So he is a kind of social contract theorist regarding the formation of government.

Without government, anyone could kill you and take what you have, if they are able and wish to do so. Or they could enslave you, or do any other thing to you. There would be no government authority to stop such things.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The political field

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Communism is classic socialism. Bernnie Sanders made a horrible mistake embracing socialism when what he really meant to do was to embrace social programs. The distinction between socialism and social programs is that socialism is the central control of the planning and means of production of goods, but a social program is one that provides a specific benefit the public which meets a need that private enterprise either cannot or will not provide.

When I was advocating for a balanced budget amendment many many years ago, I ran into an on-line bulletin board for NTUF, the National Taxpayers Union Forum. These were mainly political Libertarians. As an aid to discussion, someone suggested we read F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". Hayek was a prominent anti-socialist. And the book was a hard read for a progressive like myself. At least that was the case until we got to Chapter 9 Security and Freedom. In this chapter Hayek endorsed basically all of the social insurance programs, public health insurance, public unemployment insurance, public welfare, etc. The Libertarians were taken aback by this revelation about their saint.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The political field

Post by Ecurb »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 8th, 2020, 6:49 pm


You are confusing your terms. "Anarchy" and "capitalism" are not interchangeable or equivalent terms. In fact, they are mutually exclusive (i.e., they cannot both be at the same time and place).

Capitalism presupposes that there is a government, which means there is not anarchy, because anarchy is the absence of a government.

Property rights, which are essential to Capitalism, are outlined by the Government, and protected by the billy clubs and jails of the Government. Anarchy and Capitalism are not identical, and may be incompatible.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The political field

Post by Sy Borg »

Man With Beard wrote: October 8th, 2020, 2:37 pm
Arjen wrote: October 7th, 2020, 3:44 pmthis person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing.
Are nazis and communists the same? On one hand, they both have a very bad record. If you country is getting invaded by either, its pretty bad news.

On the other hand, if someone says "I like the ideas of communism, I just think the way they were implemented sucks" we would understand what they are talking about. Some might argue that the sucking is an inevitable consequence of the ideas, but the statement nevertheless is understandable.

But if someone says "I like the ideas of Nazis, its just that they they were implemented sucks" it would be less clear what they are even going on about.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the same".
Man With Beard wrote: October 8th, 2020, 2:44 pm
Arjen wrote: October 8th, 2020, 12:48 amI actually have great confidence in the self correcting principle of he market.
Whether the market corrects itself or not strikes me as a somewhat ludicrous argument.

So what if it corrects itself?

Lets say we live in a utopia as envisioned by Ayn Rand.

I go into medicine business. I grab some random herbs and spice from my space shelf, get some gelatin capsules, fill them with the random herbs and spices, turn on my best charm and sell them as a cure for cancer.

Eventually, someone is going to figure out that I am selling things of no medicine value, make that public, and the market will correct itself. I will go out of business.

In the meantime, if my best charm was good enough, I sold worthless goods to people with cancer, some of whom have died as a result. That the market corrected itself did them no good at all.
Excellent observations. IMO it's probably best to ignore communism as an outlier, to treat it as "what China, Russia and NK" do. No one else seems keen to follow their lead. Hands up all nations that wish they were more like China, Russia or NK! None?

Democratic socialism, as practised in Scandinavia, shows how effective left-wing governance works. Simply, if you use social support mechanisms to prevent your citizens from being overly ignorant or damaged, they will be better citizens. So the extra tax paid for this ultimately benefits all via a more peaceful, smart and productive society. The alternative is the American model, with areas of great riches and a growing swathe of malcontents, who are becoming ever more aggressive.

On the other hand, the sane face of Nazism/fascism is nationalism, wanting the best for one's own. For instance, Australia has allowed in an unprecedented number of migrants in the last twenty years, our population growth being the fastest in the world. This has not made for a better society. All it did was boost GDP to mask some systemic issues. A government is elected to care for its citizens, not to provide a good place to live for people hailing from other jurisdictions. Crush loading and increased competition for work just ends up harming and sidelining many locals, who must wonder what they are paying their taxes for.

Nationalism is not a bad thing per se, no worse that focusing on doing what's best for one's family and not being too involved in the outside world. It's aggressive jingoistic nationalism that grates. Those who treat nationalism as a moral duty rather than a practicality will tend to be anti-democratic.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The political field

Post by Sculptor1 »

Greta wrote: October 10th, 2020, 12:47 am
Man With Beard wrote: October 8th, 2020, 2:37 pm

Are nazis and communists the same? On one hand, they both have a very bad record. If you country is getting invaded by either, its pretty bad news.

On the other hand, if someone says "I like the ideas of communism, I just think the way they were implemented sucks" we would understand what they are talking about. Some might argue that the sucking is an inevitable consequence of the ideas, but the statement nevertheless is understandable.

But if someone says "I like the ideas of Nazis, its just that they they were implemented sucks" it would be less clear what they are even going on about.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the same".
Man With Beard wrote: October 8th, 2020, 2:44 pm

Whether the market corrects itself or not strikes me as a somewhat ludicrous argument.

So what if it corrects itself?

Lets say we live in a utopia as envisioned by Ayn Rand.

I go into medicine business. I grab some random herbs and spice from my space shelf, get some gelatin capsules, fill them with the random herbs and spices, turn on my best charm and sell them as a cure for cancer.

Eventually, someone is going to figure out that I am selling things of no medicine value, make that public, and the market will correct itself. I will go out of business.

In the meantime, if my best charm was good enough, I sold worthless goods to people with cancer, some of whom have died as a result. That the market corrected itself did them no good at all.
Excellent observations. IMO it's probably best to ignore communism as an outlier, to treat it as "what China, Russia and NK" do. No one else seems keen to follow their lead. Hands up all nations that wish they were more like China, Russia or NK! None?
I'm not sure you are qualified to make that statement.
It would depend on your crieria and the "truthful" analysis of the conditions those countries offered to each individual being asked.
Things are becoming rather comfortable for Chinese generally these days and as they surpassthe West in technology I doubt whether the rather dysfucntional so-called democracy is going to give much solace to poverty striken westerners. You cannot eat a voting ballot.

Democratic socialism, as practised in Scandinavia, shows how effective left-wing governance works. Simply, if you use social support mechanisms to prevent your citizens from being overly ignorant or damaged, they will be better citizens. So the extra tax paid for this ultimately benefits all via a more peaceful, smart and productive society. The alternative is the American model, with areas of great riches and a growing swathe of malcontents, who are becoming ever more aggressive.
That's democracy.

On the other hand, the sane face of Nazism/fascism is nationalism, wanting the best for one's own. For instance, Australia has allowed in an unprecedented number of migrants in the last twenty years, our population growth being the fastest in the world.
They have also incarcerated many asylum seekers on islands to face rape and other abuses.
This has not made for a better society. All it did was boost GDP to mask some systemic issues. A government is elected to care for its citizens, not to provide a good place to live for people hailing from other jurisdictions. Crush loading and increased competition for work just ends up harming and sidelining many locals, who must wonder what they are paying their taxes for.

Nationalism is not a bad thing per se, no worse that focusing on doing what's best for one's family and not being too involved in the outside world. It's aggressive jingoistic nationalism that grates. Those who treat nationalism as a moral duty rather than a practicality will tend to be anti-democratic.
Nationalism is a bad thing per se or any other way. It is at the heart of all racism.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The political field

Post by Sculptor1 »

ERROR
Greta wrote: October 10th, 2020, 12:47 am
Hands up all nations that wish they were more like China, Russia or NK! None?
My apologies for above - I did not see the question mark in the statement whose existence would draw doubt as to my reaction.
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: The political field

Post by Arjen »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 8th, 2020, 6:49 pm You are confusing your terms. "Anarchy" and "capitalism" are not interchangeable or equivalent terms. In fact, they are mutually exclusive (i.e., they cannot both be at the same time and place).
I did not. You did.

I specified absolute anarchy. The self correcting market principle is a situation that exists nowhere in any world. However, it is the theory that all transactions are allowed and unimpeded. That is the core of capitalism. I see your source and I am shocked. I fear newspeak. Because, while democracy and capitalism seem to be made for each other, capitalism (or: THE RIGHT TO POSESSION) is not a system of government. It is a basic human right.
Ecurb wrote: October 9th, 2020, 1:04 pm Property rights, which are essential to Capitalism, are outlined by the Government, and protected by the billy clubs and jails of the Government. Anarchy and Capitalism are not identical, and may be incompatible.
Yes, but I do think that democracy and capitalism are good partners though.
Just like communism and a planned market economy.
Greta wrote: October 10th, 2020, 12:47 am Excellent observations. IMO it's probably best to ignore communism as an outlier, to treat it as "what China, Russia and NK" do. No one else seems keen to follow their lead. Hands up all nations that wish they were more like China, Russia or NK! None?
Exactly why socialism is such a bad idea. It always ends up with totalitarian communism, to suppress hard working and intelligent people.
Democratic socialism, as practised in Scandinavia, shows how effective left-wing governance works. Simply, if you use social support mechanisms to prevent your citizens from being overly ignorant or damaged, they will be better citizens. So the extra tax paid for this ultimately benefits all via a more peaceful, smart and productive society. The alternative is the American model, with areas of great riches and a growing swathe of malcontents, who are becoming ever more aggressive.
We have the same ideas in The Netherlands and exactly 0 people would call that democratic socialism. Let's be clear here:
The system of government is democracy.
Within this, multiple philosophies are proposed in multiple forms by a multitude of political parties. By voting, the majority selects which general ideas are most popular at the moment and a coalition is formed to obtain the majority and form a government. The formation contains negotiations about specific ideas that line up or contradict to dictate policy for the coming term.

I was actually planning to write a topic about the differences between the Dutch system (I am Dutch and therefore know more about it than about other systems) and the American system. My knowledge of that is also limited, so in that topic, I would ask for more information. The reason why i wanted to do so is due to the 2 party system. This is a weakness. I was hoping to discuss the American system in a way to discuss this situation. Anyway, perhaps you should not reply here and wait for that topic :)
Sculptor1 wrote: October 10th, 2020, 5:46 am Nationalism is a bad thing per se or any other way. It is at the heart of all racism.
Do you think the only way to go is globalism, then?
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7092
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The political field

Post by Sculptor1 »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 8th, 2020, 6:49 pm
Arjen wrote: October 8th, 2020, 5:35 pm...


I am thinking that it isn't actually anarchy (free market, capitalism, whatever :P) that causes this problem. In a complete anarchy, a megacorp can't exist. That requires structure and a social cohesion. It needs either power or wealth to make that happen.
...

You are confusing your terms. "Anarchy" and "capitalism" are not interchangeable or equivalent terms. In fact, they are mutually exclusive (i.e., they cannot both be at the same time and place).

I agree with many things you say, but this is ********. Capitalism can thrive on anarchy and chaos, in fact it greatest achievements have been due to its ability to sow chaos and anarchy.
Capitalism has not regard or need for order.
Sociey needs to restrict capalism's excesses to achieve order, and most capitalists fear regulation and restrictions on trade and exploitation and will stop at nothing to sow discord and disinformation to disrupt the power of authorities to protect its citizenry from capitalism's worst excesses.
hegel
Posts: 77
Joined: March 29th, 2020, 1:17 pm

Re: The political field

Post by hegel »

Arjen wrote: October 7th, 2020, 3:44 pm The other day I heard someone discuss the political field in an original way. Where I am used to divide political opinions into left and right, with on both ends a totalitarian model (national socialism and communism), this person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing. I did argue this before, given that both are forms of fascism and contain an extreme of socialism. It surprised me, because, to be honest, I do like a touch of socialism, but not the extreme forms. The argument was that on the left side, we see a strong and large government, while on the right side, we see smaller governments with less laws. The extreme right therefore should be anarchism. When I was young, I did often argue in favour of anarchism, because the more force against freedom, the less people can solve their own problems and this limits for example the self correcting market principle of capitalism.
Is this a true thought? Is national socialism extreme left, but misunderstood as extreme right?

Previously, I think with @Greta I argued for a different division, with moderate governments (left and right) on 1 side and extremism (all sorts of fascism) on the other side. It would make the political discussions completely different, I thought. Is anarchy an extreme? Could the above fit my idea for a different division, which I was hoping to accomplish?

Please, amaze me with all of your insights :)
Libertarians do not believe in small government. They believe the purpose of government is to protect private wealth. They think police cars should patrol their neighborhood but not that the IRS should be auditing the tax returns of the wealthy.

Libertarians cannot recognized a public good because they think individuals are the ultimate political reality.
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: The political field

Post by Arjen »

hegel wrote: October 10th, 2020, 5:13 pm Libertarians do not believe in small government. They believe the purpose of government is to protect private wealth. They think police cars should patrol their neighborhood but not that the IRS should be auditing the tax returns of the wealthy.

Libertarians cannot recognized a public good because they think individuals are the ultimate political reality.
Isn't that generalising a bit much? What makes you think that?
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The political field

Post by Terrapin Station »

hegel wrote: October 10th, 2020, 5:13 pm Libertarians do not believe in small government. They believe the purpose of government is to protect private wealth.
That's false--at least overall (maybe some libertarians feel that way, but most do not).

The reason that libertarians would retain a public police force, by the way, is that they believe that a police force is necessary to enforce the laws that libertarians retain, and they think that a private police force wouldn't be feasible because it would too easily be corrupted, so that it's not actually upholding the laws--it would only be enforcing what its owners want it to enforce.

Just for background, while I'm no longer "just a libertarian," for a long time I was, where I was involved for awhile with the libertarian party on local, state and national levels. At one point I carted Harry Browne around part of the country for campaign appearances.

I now consider myself a "libertarian socialist" however, because I no longer agree with libertarianism's approach to economics.
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: The political field

Post by Arjen »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 11th, 2020, 10:41 am The reason that libertarians would retain a public police force, by the way, is that they believe that a police force is necessary to enforce the laws that libertarians retain, and they think that a private police force wouldn't be feasible because it would too easily be corrupted, so that it's not actually upholding the laws--it would only be enforcing what its owners want it to enforce.
I think that is 100% true. It is why there should always be a police force (and not militia or something like that).
Just for background, while I'm no longer "just a libertarian," for a long time I was, where I was involved for awhile with the libertarian party on local, state and national levels. At one point I carted Harry Browne around part of the country for campaign appearances.

I now consider myself a "libertarian socialist" however, because I no longer agree with libertarianism's approach to economics.
Nothing is black and white. Perhaps you would enjoy my topic comparing Dutch and American politics? In my country, all parties have multiple ideas, nothing is purely "right" or "left", although some do associate or show themselves as such.
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The political field

Post by Sy Borg »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 11th, 2020, 10:41 amI now consider myself a "libertarian socialist" however, because I no longer agree with libertarianism's approach to economics.
And the issue is so basic, I was taught it in high school Commerce class - economies of scale. Without, or with inadequate government intervention via progressive taxes and universal government services, wealth gaps grow. As has been seen.

In hindsight, this mess was probably always going to happen. Obviously the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful will have the greatest influence over public policy. And since power players compete for influence, they operate in a self-interested way. So the wealth gap grows.

Meanwhile, our civilisations have been built and powered by fossil fuels, so fossil fuel companies will naturally be amongst the largest and most powerful in the world. They are not about to annoy owners and shareholders by relinquishing their market share without a fight. So they act as an intertial force on climate change action. As you have implied, companies cannot be relied upon to work towards society's best interests - they have other compelling competing interests.
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