Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4292
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by Belindi »

GEMorton wrote:
The problem with the UN Declaration is found in Article 1:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
The problem with libertarians is here and elsewhere you confuse freedom with liberty. There is no such thing as liberty- from, whereas freedom from hunger and oppression is what all men aim for.
GE Morton
Posts: 2788
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: January 6th, 2022, 1:18 pm GEMorton wrote:
The problem with the UN Declaration is found in Article 1:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
The problem with libertarians is here and elsewhere you confuse freedom with liberty. There is no such thing as liberty- from, whereas freedom from hunger and oppression is what all men aim for.
Well, Belindi, most dictionaries offer liberty as a synonym for freedom, and vice-versa. The distinction you're trying to draw is your own invention.

"LIBERTY (noun)
"1: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely : FREEDOM

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty

"Synonyms & Antonyms for freedom
"Synonyms

"autonomy, independence, independency, liberty, self-determination, self-governance, self-government, sovereignty (also sovranty)."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

And, yes, there is "liberty-from." In political philosophy the "liberty-from" is the liberty (or freedom) from control of one's life and actions by other moral agents, PROVIDED that one's acts do not inflict losses or injuries on other moral agents.

And, yes, it's (mostly) true that all men desire freedom from hunger, oppression, and many other evils. But that desire doesn't entitle them to inflict losses and injuries on others to satisfy those desires. Desires don't entail rights.
Ecurb
Posts: 1203
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 6th, 2022, 1:03 pm
Yes, someone who claims a "right" to the services of other people or to the products of their labor is advocating slavery. Er, where is the "prevarication"?
Their are multiple problems with your claim, the most obvious being that nobody except you (and, perhaps, 2 or 3 fellow travelers) would call claiming the right to accept medicare constitutes advocating slavery. You are free to make any silly claims you want to make -- but this one constitutes clear prevarication.

The other problem with your claim is that both exaggerates whatever evils the system of taxation you decry produces, and minimizes the evils of actual slavery. Do you really want to claim that accepting medicare is equivalent to advocating a return to chatell slavery? If not, your claim is both prevarication, and poor rhetoric, because instead of persuading anyone it will annoy them by suggesting that slavery was a minor political and ethical problem.

Again, I did NOT call taxation "slavery." You repeat the misquote earlier pointed out. I said that taxes, when seized to pay for goods or services of no benefit to the taxpayer, RESEMBLE slavery, in that they confiscate the products of the taxpayer's labor for the benefit of someone other than the taxpayer. They are not exactly slavery, however, in that the taxed person is not forced to work and produce the wealth the government steals. He can quit producing, leaving the government nothing to steal, without punishment.
Lots of theings RESEMBLE slavery, including working in the cotton fields owned by some capitalist. However, that's not what you said. You wrote,
"The correct name for that claim (the claim that people have a right to the product of others' labor) is "slavery."
If you want to change your tune, fine. I agree. Eating with wooden spoons resembles slavery, being a house maid resembles slavery, obeying the commands of your superior officers in the army resembles slavery. So what? Again, you are dissembling -- using faulty logic. YOu are trying to suggest that:

P1: Slavery is Evil
P2: Taxing people to pay for certain things resembles slavery

Therefore: Taxing people to pay for certain things is evil.

But the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Following orders in the military resembles slavery. Does that mean it is evil?
And, of course, neither poor people or any other people have any "right" to the services of other people or to the products of their labor. Anyone who so claims does not know what the term "right" (in the sense relevant here) means. (Gertie, above, seeks to avoid this charge by adopting the Humpty Dumpty theory of meaning).
Apparently the U.N. is a Humpty Dumpty orgainzation. AS is your common practice, you are trying to win arguments through definitions. Exactly what is up for debate is whether such "rights" SHOULD exist. Simply saying, "They don't exist because they didn't exist according to Hobbes or Locke" isn't even an argument, It's simply a statement. Why should anyone care?
If the services of those teachers, police, etc., confer no benefits on the taxpayer, then forcing him to pay for them RESEMBLES slavery --- for the reasons just given.
As I said, I agree. As would any reasonable person. But where does that get us? We can infer absolutely nothing about the morality of such taxation from the fact that it RESEMBLES slavery. Nor can we claim that eating with wooden spoons is evil because it RESEMBLES slavery. This should be obvious to anyone.
Ecurb
Posts: 1203
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 6th, 2022, 3:45 pm

"LIBERTY (noun)
"1: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely : FREEDOM

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty

"Synonyms & Antonyms for freedom
"Synonyms

"autonomy, independence, independency, liberty, self-determination, self-governance, self-government, sovereignty (also sovranty)."

One thing is clear: private property limits freedom, autonomy, independence, liberty, self-determination, self-governance, and sovereignty. That's why it's strange that people calling themselves "Libertarian" are such virulent advocates for it. I don't, I hope, need to show the innumerable and incontravertable examples of how property -- by these definitions -- limits liberty. They should be obvious to anyone. Also, per my last post, we cannot logically infer from this that since slavery limits liberty, and private property limits liberty, and thus private property resembles slavery: private property is an evil thing.
GE Morton
Posts: 2788
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by GE Morton »

GE Morton wrote: January 6th, 2022, 3:45 pm
Well, Belindi, most dictionaries offer liberty as a synonym for freedom, and vice-versa. The distinction you're trying to draw is your own invention.
PS: Belindi, "Liberty" is derived from the Latin liber, which means "free."
GE Morton
Posts: 2788
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: January 6th, 2022, 8:30 pm
One thing is clear: private property limits freedom, autonomy, independence, liberty, self-determination, self-governance, and sovereignty.
Oooh, G. A. Cohen redux.

Yep, property rights limit "absolute" freedom. So do all other rights; e.g., your right to life constrains my freedom to kill you. But then, no libertarian or classical liberal has ever advocated absolute freedom. They only advocate the freedom to do as one pleases, PROVIDED one does not inflict losses or injuries on others. And property rights (nor any other real rights) do not limit freedom so conceived.
Ecurb
Posts: 1203
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 6th, 2022, 8:54 pm

Yep, property rights limit "absolute" freedom. So do all other rights; e.g., your right to life constrains my freedom to kill you. But then, no libertarian or classical liberal has ever advocated absolute freedom. They only advocate the freedom to do as one pleases, PROVIDED one does not inflict losses or injuries on others. And property rights (nor any other real rights) do not limit freedom so conceived.
"So conceived"? Freedom is never "so conceived". It is merely the case that freedom often should be limited -- all laws (and rights) limit it. The difference is that laws are passed with the consent of the people -- so at least one has a say in how one's freedom is limited. Property allows one person to control other people -- hence it resembles slavery more than the taxes to which you object do. (Remember, I'm not saying it's evil because it resembles slavery. That is specifically what I'm arguing against. I"m just pointing out how a claim that some institutions and procedures resemble slavery can be used to object to things you support.)
GE Morton
Posts: 2788
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: January 6th, 2022, 8:18 pm
GE Morton wrote: January 6th, 2022, 1:03 pm
Yes, someone who claims a "right" to the services of other people or to the products of their labor is advocating slavery. Er, where is the "prevarication"?
Their are multiple problems with your claim, the most obvious being that nobody except you (and, perhaps, 2 or 3 fellow travelers) would call claiming the right to accept medicare constitutes advocating slavery. You are free to make any silly claims you want to make -- but this one constitutes clear prevarication.
Er, where did I make such a claim? I don't recall even mentioning Medicare in this thread, or any other recent thread. Your "rebuttals" would be much more effective if you directed them to statements actually made, rather than strawmen of your own devising.

But I suppose your assumption is that since Medicare involves the services of other people, then if I should claim a right to it, I would would be contradicting myself. Is that it?

Ok. First, one can sometimes have rights to the services of other people, namely, when one has freely entered into some sort of contract or agreement with someone who has also freely entered into it, and has performed one's own obligations under that contract. That person then has a right that the other parties perform their obligations. I don't mention that exception in most discussions because they are obvious. So let's modify my statement above as follows: "Someone who claims a 'right' to the services of other people or to the products of their labor (absent some sort of contract or agreement among them) is advocating slavery. Ok? *

Second, my "right" to Medicare is a legal right. The rights referred to in the previous sentence are real --- natural or common --- rights. One can indeed have legal rights to anything some lawgiver decrees. But those are arbitrary, fiat "rights," lacking any moral significance. Medicare (and Social Security, in the US) are odd ducks, however, because the legal "rights" to them depend upon having paid taxes to support those programs over the course of one's working life. Those payments (arguably) establish a contractual right (as above) to those benefits.

You might try to focus on the substance of the argument --- that no one has any a priori (real, not fiat) right to the services of other people, or to the products of their labor.

Ok?
The other problem with your claim is that both exaggerates whatever evils the system of taxation you decry produces, and minimizes the evils of actual slavery. Do you really want to claim that accepting medicare is equivalent to advocating a return to chatell slavery? If not, your claim is both prevarication, and poor rhetoric, because instead of persuading anyone it will annoy them by suggesting that slavery was a minor political and ethical problem.
Well, now, I never drew that comparison. You did. And it is vacuous argument, since accepting Medicare (if eligible, as above) does not violate anyone's rights and so has no relationship to slavery. My own statements carry no implications that slavery is a "minor" problem.
Again, I did NOT call taxation "slavery." You repeat the misquote earlier pointed out. I said that taxes, when seized to pay for goods or services of no benefit to the taxpayer, RESEMBLE slavery, in that they confiscate the products of the taxpayer's labor for the benefit of someone other than the taxpayer. They are not exactly slavery, however, in that the taxed person is not forced to work and produce the wealth the government steals. He can quit producing, leaving the government nothing to steal, without punishment.
Lots of things RESEMBLE slavery, including working in the cotton fields owned by some capitalist. However, that's not what you said. You wrote, "The correct name for that claim (the claim that people have a right to the product of others' labor) is 'slavery.'" If you want to change your tune, fine. I agree. Eating with wooden spoons resembles slavery, being a house maid resembles slavery, obeying the commands of your superior officers in the army resembles slavery.
Incorrect. You're confusing two claims here (I should have caught this in the previous post). I said that TAXES, when imposed to benefit someone other than the taxpayer, RESEMBLES slavery, in that that it entails an (a priori, non-contractual) claim to the products of other's labor. Since I gave the specific point of resemblance between such taxes and slavery, your listing of irrelevant resemblances is gratuitous and pointless.

But the confusion is between that claim about taxes, and the claim that someone has a right to the services of other people, or to the products of their labor. Those are two different claims. The latter RIGHTS claim is a slavery claim, a prima facie one. Legitimate (real) rights claims may morally be enforced. So if Alfie has a right that Bruno build him a house, he may force Bruno to build that house, without regard to any taxes or any other government actions. But unless Alfie's claimed right derives from some sort of contract between Alfie and Bruno, then he is claiming a power to enslave Bruno, prima facie.
So what? Again, you are dissembling -- using faulty logic. YOu are trying to suggest that:

P1: Slavery is Evil
P2: Taxing people to pay for certain things resembles slavery

Therefore: Taxing people to pay for certain things is evil.

But the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
You're right. But then, I never made such an argument. However, if you spell out the way in which taxes resemble slavery (as I did), and that common feature between (some) taxes and slavery is evil, and if "certain things" denotes the same set of things in both the premises and conclusion, then that argument would be valid.

* There are a few other ways one may gain a right to the services of other people, e.g., if someone injures you, you gain a right to damages. If you bring a child into the world it has a right to your support until it can support himself/herself.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 11293
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by Sy Borg »

LuckyR wrote: January 5th, 2022, 6:50 pm Living in a city that has suffered because of homelessness, I can attest that even thinking completely selfishly, it is in the interest of the well off to address the homeless problem (even if one believes in the "right" of the wealthy/lucky to "their" good fortune).

I agree that builders logically make decisions based on their best interest, thus it falls onto the government to address issues such as less profitable housing that is in the public interest. The government should do this for many reasons. It is in the interest of the homeless, current homeowners, and everyone in the community.
Agreed. Limiting inequality seems to be less about nobility than stability. Most people find that having numerous desperately hungry people with nothing to lose roaming around is depressing and unnerving.
GE Morton
Posts: 2788
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: January 6th, 2022, 9:43 pm
GE Morton wrote: January 6th, 2022, 8:54 pm
Yep, property rights limit "absolute" freedom. So do all other rights; e.g., your right to life constrains my freedom to kill you. But then, no libertarian or classical liberal has ever advocated absolute freedom. They only advocate the freedom to do as one pleases, PROVIDED one does not inflict losses or injuries on others. And property rights (nor any other real rights) do not limit freedom so conceived.
"So conceived"? Freedom is never "so conceived".
Huh? It obviously has been so conceived, since it's just been articulated. Not only by me, but by virtually every other classical liberal philosopher. What a silly claim.
It is merely the case that freedom often should be limited -- all laws (and rights) limit it. The difference is that laws are passed with the consent of the people -- so at least one has a say in how one's freedom is limited.
Really? You suggest that whether others should be free to kill you should be determined by a public vote? You're advocating mob rule?

I don't think you really understand the concept of rights (or perhaps of moral constraints generally). If you have a right to something, or to do something, then morally speaking, you may keep it or do it no matter what "the public" wants or thinks. Popular decision-making is itself constrained by individual rights (that is the purpose of the US Bill of Rights).
Property allows one person to control other people -- hence it resembles slavery more than the taxes to which you object do.
All rights allow one person to exert certain controls over other people. That is their purpose. And, no, it does not "resemble slavery," since the latter consists in forcing others to labor. No rights, including property rights, force anyone to labor, unless pursuant to a contract or to compensate for an injury inflicted.

You're wandering the the woods, sir.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5904
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: January 6th, 2022, 10:38 pm
LuckyR wrote: January 5th, 2022, 6:50 pm Living in a city that has suffered because of homelessness, I can attest that even thinking completely selfishly, it is in the interest of the well off to address the homeless problem (even if one believes in the "right" of the wealthy/lucky to "their" good fortune).

I agree that builders logically make decisions based on their best interest, thus it falls onto the government to address issues such as less profitable housing that is in the public interest. The government should do this for many reasons. It is in the interest of the homeless, current homeowners, and everyone in the community.
Agreed. Limiting inequality seems to be less about nobility than stability. Most people find that having numerous desperately hungry people with nothing to lose roaming around is depressing and unnerving.
It is illogical to me that folks who claim to be driven by personal gain (over public good) fail to grasp the value (personally) of public decency and stability. Of course it is an easy task to benefit personally from societal stability and bellyache about the cost of same, implying that it has little or no value, when one doesn't have to address it's absence.

I wonder how many homeowners who have the misfortune of having homeless camps adjacent to their property crow about the few bucks they would save in tax cuts to dissolve their city's homelessness plan.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 11293
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by Sy Borg »

LuckyR wrote: January 7th, 2022, 1:48 am
Sy Borg wrote: January 6th, 2022, 10:38 pm
LuckyR wrote: January 5th, 2022, 6:50 pm Living in a city that has suffered because of homelessness, I can attest that even thinking completely selfishly, it is in the interest of the well off to address the homeless problem (even if one believes in the "right" of the wealthy/lucky to "their" good fortune).

I agree that builders logically make decisions based on their best interest, thus it falls onto the government to address issues such as less profitable housing that is in the public interest. The government should do this for many reasons. It is in the interest of the homeless, current homeowners, and everyone in the community.
Agreed. Limiting inequality seems to be less about nobility than stability. Most people find that having numerous desperately hungry people with nothing to lose roaming around is depressing and unnerving.
It is illogical to me that folks who claim to be driven by personal gain (over public good) fail to grasp the value (personally) of public decency and stability. Of course it is an easy task to benefit personally from societal stability and bellyache about the cost of same, implying that it has little or no value, when one doesn't have to address it's absence.

I wonder how many homeowners who have the misfortune of having homeless camps adjacent to their property crow about the few bucks they would save in tax cuts to dissolve their city's homelessness plan.
It's a microcosm of humanity's relationship with nature. The idea has been to insulate ourselves from the problems in nature our societies as a whole cause. However, as the damage increases, over time the "insulation" fails ever more people.

I would expect that those located furthest from homeless camps will be keenest to save tax dollars because they themselves are not impacted. They save some tax dollars without any downsides, since the problem only affects those living around the camps.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5904
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: January 7th, 2022, 2:42 am
LuckyR wrote: January 7th, 2022, 1:48 am
Sy Borg wrote: January 6th, 2022, 10:38 pm
LuckyR wrote: January 5th, 2022, 6:50 pm Living in a city that has suffered because of homelessness, I can attest that even thinking completely selfishly, it is in the interest of the well off to address the homeless problem (even if one believes in the "right" of the wealthy/lucky to "their" good fortune).

I agree that builders logically make decisions based on their best interest, thus it falls onto the government to address issues such as less profitable housing that is in the public interest. The government should do this for many reasons. It is in the interest of the homeless, current homeowners, and everyone in the community.
Agreed. Limiting inequality seems to be less about nobility than stability. Most people find that having numerous desperately hungry people with nothing to lose roaming around is depressing and unnerving.
It is illogical to me that folks who claim to be driven by personal gain (over public good) fail to grasp the value (personally) of public decency and stability. Of course it is an easy task to benefit personally from societal stability and bellyache about the cost of same, implying that it has little or no value, when one doesn't have to address it's absence.

I wonder how many homeowners who have the misfortune of having homeless camps adjacent to their property crow about the few bucks they would save in tax cuts to dissolve their city's homelessness plan.
It's a microcosm of humanity's relationship with nature. The idea has been to insulate ourselves from the problems in nature our societies as a whole cause. However, as the damage increases, over time the "insulation" fails ever more people.

I would expect that those located furthest from homeless camps will be keenest to save tax dollars because they themselves are not impacted. They save some tax dollars without any downsides, since the problem only affects those living around the camps.
You bring up a truism that while central to modern (especially future) civilization, is commonly unspoken. Namely that modern society and it's technology can compensate for natural forces. Thus, while the proliferation of homeless camps should fuel growing support for addressing homelessness, the ability of the power structure to reside in locations remote from the problem and the ability of media content to be professionally created specifically to sway the unsophisticated to vote against their best interest, can reverse the logical consequences of particular trends.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 11293
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by Sy Borg »

LuckyR wrote: January 7th, 2022, 2:56 am
Sy Borg wrote: January 7th, 2022, 2:42 am
LuckyR wrote: January 7th, 2022, 1:48 am
Sy Borg wrote: January 6th, 2022, 10:38 pm

Agreed. Limiting inequality seems to be less about nobility than stability. Most people find that having numerous desperately hungry people with nothing to lose roaming around is depressing and unnerving.
It is illogical to me that folks who claim to be driven by personal gain (over public good) fail to grasp the value (personally) of public decency and stability. Of course it is an easy task to benefit personally from societal stability and bellyache about the cost of same, implying that it has little or no value, when one doesn't have to address it's absence.

I wonder how many homeowners who have the misfortune of having homeless camps adjacent to their property crow about the few bucks they would save in tax cuts to dissolve their city's homelessness plan.
It's a microcosm of humanity's relationship with nature. The idea has been to insulate ourselves from the problems in nature our societies as a whole cause. However, as the damage increases, over time the "insulation" fails ever more people.

I would expect that those located furthest from homeless camps will be keenest to save tax dollars because they themselves are not impacted. They save some tax dollars without any downsides, since the problem only affects those living around the camps.
You bring up a truism that while central to modern (especially future) civilization, is commonly unspoken. Namely that modern society and it's technology can compensate for natural forces. Thus, while the proliferation of homeless camps should fuel growing support for addressing homelessness, the ability of the power structure to reside in locations remote from the problem and the ability of media content to be professionally created specifically to sway the unsophisticated to vote against their best interest, can reverse the logical consequences of particular trends.
To that effect, the future can be expected to result in ever more and higher walls that are ever more heavily guarded to keep the riff raff out.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4292
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is being homeless a crime / should it be?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: January 6th, 2022, 8:35 pm
GE Morton wrote: January 6th, 2022, 3:45 pm
Well, Belindi, most dictionaries offer liberty as a synonym for freedom, and vice-versa. The distinction you're trying to draw is your own invention.
PS: Belindi, "Liberty" is derived from the Latin liber, which means "free."
I enjoy etymology. I sometimes use a dictionary . These resources are to communication as a canal is to a river. You should attend to Wittgenstein's social theory of language "the meaning of a word is its use".
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

Upcoming Philosphy 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)

Living in Color

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

Previous 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