Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Locked
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by GE Morton »

GE Morton wrote: May 21st, 2022, 7:58 pm
LOL. Sound like an argument a mafiosi might make to a restauranteur objecting to paying protection money.
Or that a defense attorney might offer on behalf of his client, accused of rape: "Well, no one forced her to walk along that dark street."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 21st, 2022, 7:01 am
For any humans reading this, the GEM-cell is quite wrong. It asserts that a network consists only of its nodes. Without the nodes, a network cannot exist; without the connections, a network cannot exist. The function of a network depends on its nodes and connections. Society is such a network; it comprises individuals (nodes) and interconnections (connections) and their consequent interactions.
GE Morton wrote: May 21st, 2022, 2:34 pm Well, now you've switched terminology. Your comment, to which I responded was, "Reality features a fruitful and dynamic balance between the individual and the group."

Now you're speaking of "networks," not "groups." Not all groups are networks...
Being part of a network is an attribute, not a reclassification. All groups are networks. They have nodes (normally people) and those people are, in the context of that group, 'connected'. Thus, a group is a network. The point you miss is that one group-member, or 'node' is both an individual and a member of the group, and neither one undermines the other. Membership of a group, and individuality, are in balance, one might even say they're 'in harmony'.

If I observe that you have arms - you are 'armed' - and you have legs - you are 'legged' - this introduces no conflict. There is nothing about being armed that affects your being legged, or vice versa. You are both things, simultaneously.
GE Morton wrote: May 21st, 2022, 2:34 pm What is it that must be balanced? I suppose the your answer would be the "needs" of the network v. those of a "node."
The network has no 'needs'. The balance I refer to describes the undesirability of us concentrating on nodes, or on connections, while neglecting the other. A network cannot even exist without both. To concentrate on either one is to deliberately create a skewed and flawed perspective, which leads only to confusion and absurdity.


GE Morton wrote: May 21st, 2022, 2:34 pm But then you're back to the beginning, since only the "nodes" of the network have needs. The network has no needs other than those of the "nodes."

Society is indeed a type of network, but unlike (say) a computer or telephone network, the connections between "nodes" are not hardwired; they are dynamic, volatile, and are are selected by the "nodes" to advance their own interests and purposes, not by a systems engineer (though many politicians and social scientists imagine that to be their role) to advance some interest or purpose --- or fantasy -- of the designer.
Connections within telephone or computer networks are very much dynamic and volatile. You don't really think the connection you made to your auntie when you 'phoned her is permanent, do you? My connection to this computer-networked forum is not hard-wired, it is transient. Networks, and their components, nodes and connections, do not have needs, they have function. This function is defined by the nature of the nodes and connections, and the ways they interact. The function of nodes and connections is not independent or separable, or even meaningful. The 'function' belongs to the network.

Please do not misunderstand me to mean that groups are networks, and only networks, for that is surely not so. 'Networkness' is just an attribute of a group, or perhaps a partial description of that group. Nothing more (or less).
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: May 21st, 2022, 7:58 pm
Ecurb wrote: May 21st, 2022, 2:11 pm
This is where we disagree. "Taking possession" of property ALWAYS inflicts loss or injury on other people.
Er, no. You can't "lose" what you never had in the first place.....


They don't have any such right. They only have a right to walk on land not owned by someone else, just as they only have right to pick apples not owned by someone else. You're again invoking the absurd "lost opportunity" argument.
This is clearly incorrect. Perhaps "right" is not the correct word, but before someone owned a parcel of land, everyone had the ability to righteously walk across it without being arrested. Since all rights are simply the flip side of obligations, clearly all rights (including property rights) oblige people to behave in a particullar way. If someone is obligated to (for example) associate with black people, he has lost the right to avoid so associating. This, of course, is your argument in favor of racist restauranteers. However, since the restaurant is owned by a racist, black people are (or were before the laws changed) obligated not to enter the restaurant because of his property rights. There is no reductio ad absurdum. Obligations inevitably involve a loss of freedom. The notion that freedom is only "potential" is true, of course, but losing it remains a loss.

Suppose a black man lived on a tiny square of land, consisting of one square yard. The land around him was all owned by a racist, who decreed that no black people could set foot on his property. Are you suggesting that the black man's right to "freedom of movement" is NOT limited by property ownership? Come on now! That's ridiculous.
Also, since property is not an extension of one's body, the owner of a restaurant does NOT lose the right to free association when he is barred from discriminatory practices.
You apparently still don't see the blatant contradiction in that claim. That is amazing. "Free association" entails the right to discriminate, on racial or any other grounds. "Free" association means lack of constraints on one's choices regarding with whom to enter into a relationship.
Nobody forced him to own a restaurant. He can choose another line of work, like chairing Ku Klux Klan meetings.
LOL. Sound like an argument a mafiosi might make to a restauranteur objecting to paying protection money.
I know what "free association" means, GE. But nobody has a right to free association in all circumstances. If, for example, the racist store owner goes out of his store into the street, he must associate with all sorts of people. Suppose he goes to a movie. OH no! Some black people are allowed in! So you support the notion that since his ownership allows him to prevent other people from entering his property against his wishes, his right to free association is limited by laws preventing racial discrimination. It's true that such laws prevent him from discriminating in one particular way -- with regard to a store that is open to the public. He is still free to associate with whomever he chooses in his house, festooned as it is with burning crosses and nooses hanging from trees. But just as his "right" to free association is limited when he is out in public, it is also limited when he is in a public place of business, whether is the owner or not.

The conflicting rights of property ownership and freedom of movement have, in this case, been resolved by law in favor of freedom of movement. Since all rights (and all laws) limit freedom, we shouldn't whine when one set of rights (i.e. one set of limits on freedom) wins out over another, especially when the moral issues involved are so clear. Inordinate respect for property rights (i.e. obligations to respect property law) over other rights is silly. Since property rights are common rights, determined by law rather than by nature, it is reasonable to create them and legislate them in a morally sound manner. ONe way in which we have done so is by requiring store owners not to discriminate in certain ways.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by GE Morton »

Sy Borg wrote: May 21st, 2022, 7:55 pm
GE Morton wrote: May 21st, 2022, 11:58 am Sorry, Sy, but "mentally destroyed" is a hyperbolic, polemical metaphor with no substantive content.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence, because it's inconvenient to your fantasies based on 19th century science that humans are not diverse.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstacey ... 2455b4716e

The numbers are stark, worrisome and should set off alarm bells: 52% of all transgender and nonbinary young people in the U.S. seriously contemplated killing themselves in 2020. More than half thought it would be better to be dead, rather than trying to live with rejection, isolation, loneliness, bullying and being targeted by politicians and activists pushing anti-trans legislation.
My "fantasy" that "humans are not diverse"? Despite many posts emphasizing that diversity, such as this one in this thread?:

"That humans are individuals is an undeniable, observable fact. And that those individuals differ in countless ways, and especially in their respective talents, abilities, temperaments, and interests, is also an undeniable, observable fact. Those differences are extensive enough and distinct enough to render each of them unique. Individualism is nothing more that the recognition of those facts."

They are not very diverse with respect to sex, however, there being only two possibilities (plus a few rare cases of hermaphroditism). Or are you merely speaking of a diversity in beliefs about one's sex? I agree there is a wider diversity there, with some of those beliefs being factual and others baseless and false.

With regard to your suicide link: It reports on a survey compiling self-reported suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. As with all studies using that methodology, you take the results with a grain of salt, especially when they are conducted by organizations with an agenda, such the one you link. Subjects tend to report what they think the surveyor wants to hear, especially if it will gain them some sympathy or tangible benefits, or in order to dramatize their resentment over their perceived lack of acceptance. Such "studies" do not constitute "science." For that you need some stats on actual suicides (not self-reported attempts), or attempts documented by hospital or emergency room or EMT records.

I don't deny that lack of acceptance --- for whatever reason --- may cause depression in some people, severe enough in a few to induce suicide. But that fact creates no obligation upon anyone to accept them (befriend them, associate with them, do business with them, etc.). Many other causes also induce suicide in some people, but if those causes involve no violations of their rights, no violations of others' rights to alleviate them are justifiable. Alfie is not responsible for solving Bruno's personal problems (and sexual dysphoria IS a personal problem), and he has no obligation to accept them (or anyone else) or alter his preferences or forego standard English in order to accomodate their sensitivities.
The post (taken out of context) was not just about undermining the sense of identity of vulnerable transpeople who are already often teetering on the edge of suicide. I appreciate that you are a transgender flat-Earther, unable to absorb science conducted in the last century. I don't expect sense from you in this area.
Heh. What "science" would that be? Have biologists discovered a new sex? That would surely be worthy of a Nobel Prize.
You are a self-declared libertarian, yes? You are completely against all government interventions, aside from cases of murder, rape and theft, yes?

So how can you justify government intervention in these areas? Government should not interfere with private business, yes?
Oh, I've given the criterion for morally justifiable government intervention many times ---it is justified in order to prevent or redress infliction of losses or injuries on other moral agents. But we don't count subjective, idiosyncratic emotional reactions to innocent acts --- and certainly not speech --- as "injuries." "Hurt feelings" are not injuries.
Why draw the line at murder, rape and theft? If people are killed, raped or robbed, that's their fault for being weak.
That is absurd, Sy. People who are not "weak" by any measure are robbed, murdered, raped every day. Those crimes inflict calculable losses and injuries on anyone victimzed by them, no matter how strong they are. Moreover, most LGBT people are not "weak" either; they are, on average, as strong as anyone else. You don't "draw the line" on the basis of "weakness;" you draw it based upon whether there is a tangible, objective injury inflicted by an act intended, or certain, to cause that injury.
Of course, the vulnerability of teenagers - especially those struggling with sexual identity (a mind bogglingly difficult personal problem that few will ever have to face) - is much greater than most, but the general principle is the question of vulnerability and protection of the weak by authorities.
I agree that sexual dysphoria can be a troubling problem for those suffering from it. Other people have other troubling problems. Some people commit suicide because they lost their job, or because their spouses died or left them, or because their novel was not accepted by any publisher, or because their sweethearts married someone else, or because the stock market crashed, wiping out their fortunes, or because they've become involved in a scandal subjecting them to public obloquy. None of those personal problems fall within the purview of government. We don't prohibit employers from firing poor employees, or forbid divorce, or dictate whom one may or must marry, forbid publishers from rejecting novels or reporting on a scandal, because someone might be driven to suicide by such acts.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by JackDaydream »

GE Morton wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 2:00 pm
Sy Borg wrote: May 21st, 2022, 7:55 pm
GE Morton wrote: May 21st, 2022, 11:58 am Sorry, Sy, but "mentally destroyed" is a hyperbolic, polemical metaphor with no substantive content.
Only because you refuse to acknowledge the evidence, because it's inconvenient to your fantasies based on 19th century science that humans are not diverse.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstacey ... 2455b4716e

The numbers are stark, worrisome and should set off alarm bells: 52% of all transgender and nonbinary young people in the U.S. seriously contemplated killing themselves in 2020. More than half thought it would be better to be dead, rather than trying to live with rejection, isolation, loneliness, bullying and being targeted by politicians and activists pushing anti-trans legislation.
My "fantasy" that "humans are not diverse"? Despite many posts emphasizing that diversity, such as this one in this thread?:

"That humans are individuals is an undeniable, observable fact. And that those individuals differ in countless ways, and especially in their respective talents, abilities, temperaments, and interests, is also an undeniable, observable fact. Those differences are extensive enough and distinct enough to render each of them unique. Individualism is nothing more that the recognition of those facts."

They are not very diverse with respect to sex, however, there being only two possibilities (plus a few rare cases of hermaphroditism). Or are you merely speaking of a diversity in beliefs about one's sex? I agree there is a wider diversity there, with some of those beliefs being factual and others baseless and false.

With regard to your suicide link: It reports on a survey compiling self-reported suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. As with all studies using that methodology, you take the results with a grain of salt, especially when they are conducted by organizations with an agenda, such the one you link. Subjects tend to report what they think the surveyor wants to hear, especially if it will gain them some sympathy or tangible benefits, or in order to dramatize their resentment over their perceived lack of acceptance. Such "studies" do not constitute "science." For that you need some stats on actual suicides (not self-reported attempts), or attempts documented by hospital or emergency room or EMT records.

I don't deny that lack of acceptance --- for whatever reason --- may cause depression in some people, severe enough in a few to induce suicide. But that fact creates no obligation upon anyone to accept them (befriend them, associate with them, do business with them, etc.). Many other causes also induce suicide in some people, but if those causes involve no violations of their rights, no violations of others' rights to alleviate them are justifiable. Alfie is not responsible for solving Bruno's personal problems (and sexual dysphoria IS a personal problem), and he has no obligation to accept them (or anyone else) or alter his preferences or forego standard English in order to accomodate their sensitivities.
The post (taken out of context) was not just about undermining the sense of identity of vulnerable transpeople who are already often teetering on the edge of suicide. I appreciate that you are a transgender flat-Earther, unable to absorb science conducted in the last century. I don't expect sense from you in this area.
Heh. What "science" would that be? Have biologists discovered a new sex? That would surely be worthy of a Nobel Prize.
You are a self-declared libertarian, yes? You are completely against all government interventions, aside from cases of murder, rape and theft, yes?

So how can you justify government intervention in these areas? Government should not interfere with private business, yes?
Oh, I've given the criterion for morally justifiable government intervention many times ---it is justified in order to prevent or redress infliction of losses or injuries on other moral agents. But we don't count subjective, idiosyncratic emotional reactions to innocent acts --- and certainly not speech --- as "injuries." "Hurt feelings" are not injuries.
Why draw the line at murder, rape and theft? If people are killed, raped or robbed, that's their fault for being weak.
That is absurd, Sy. People who are not "weak" by any measure are robbed, murdered, raped every day. Those crimes inflict calculable losses and injuries on anyone victimzed by them, no matter how strong they are. Moreover, most LGBT people are not "weak" either; they are, on average, as strong as anyone else. You don't "draw the line" on the basis of "weakness;" you draw it based upon whether there is a tangible, objective injury inflicted by an act intended, or certain, to cause that injury.
Of course, the vulnerability of teenagers - especially those struggling with sexual identity (a mind bogglingly difficult personal problem that few will ever have to face) - is much greater than most, but the general principle is the question of vulnerability and protection of the weak by authorities.
I agree that sexual dysphoria can be a troubling problem for those suffering from it. Other people have other troubling problems. Some people commit suicide because they lost their job, or because their spouses died or left them, or because their novel was not accepted by any publisher, or because their sweethearts married someone else, or because the stock market crashed, wiping out their fortunes, or because they've become involved in a scandal subjecting them to public obloquy. None of those personal problems fall within the purview of government. We don't prohibit employers from firing poor employees, or forbid divorce, or dictate whom one may or must marry, forbid publishers from rejecting novels or reporting on a scandal, because someone might be driven to suicide by such acts.
I don't see why diversity should not extend to LGBTQI issues, including people's choice of pronouns being accepted. I can't see why there should be any issue accepting anyone's choice of sexuality or gender identity. To deadname people on the basis that they do not appear to one's own expectations of what a man or woman should look like, or on the basis of their chromosomes says a lot about the psychology of the person who has a problem with a person's unique gender identity. With the chromosome argument, its not as if most people have chromosome tests unless there are specific reasons for it, so most people don't know their chromosomes for definite, and it about assumptions oneself and, even assumptions are made about what genitals people have on the basis of a person's appearance.

I am not suggesting that you personally have a problem with LGBTIQ issues, and I am merely writing here in relation to the discussion on such issues. It seems to me that there is so much projected onto trans people, especially on social media. In addition, there can be so much hostility and hatred. I know a transwoman who was beaten up so badly in her 20s that she will have to spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair. Also, there are many instances of trans killings throughout the world, not counting abuse and bullying. It may be hard enough for individuals to work on their identity choices without others making it all such an issue. The strict binary of views on gender identification and the need to conform to this may be one of the biggest factors driving people to alter their bodies and may lessen if there was more open mindedness and tolerance of diversity.
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by Good_Egg »

Ecurb wrote: May 21st, 2022, 11:02 am I do think there are things which are inherently right and wrong.
Good. And these "things" that are inherently morally wrong are acts ? And that there is a moral obligation not to perform such acts ? Regardless of whether one thinks that the outcome will be generally beneficial ?
...you are a Johnny-come-lately; we have been arguing about these issues endlessly and resolved nothing)
Thank you for taking the time to re-iterate your position for a recent arrival.
In general, natural rights (Life #1 and Liberty #2) trump other rights. But, of course, we limit natural rights to create an orderly society.
This is the bit I don't understand. The second sentence seems to undermine the argument you're making with the first.

You seem to be saying first that it's always morally wrong for the state to take a human life because human life is a natural right. Being "natural" means that it exists prior to the state and not at the discretion of the state, and being a right means it imposes a moral obligation on every other human - a right for me is a duty for you and vice versa.

And then in the second sentence you seem to be approving of the state (the community acting collectively) acting to deny some people some of their natural rights. On the grounds that such "limitation" is in pursuit of some collectively-held value (such as order or economic prosperity.

How can you assert a moral obligation and then approve of behaviour that does not fulfil it ?
In general, I think that regulating the economic sector is a legitimate role of government.
Economic prosperity is a legitimate aim, yes. But honouring one's moral obligations means refraining from certain acts. There can be no moral carte blanche to use any and all means in pursuit of a particular aim or to do what one likes in a particular "sector".
Law enforcement prevents fraud, enforces contracts, and protects from robbery...
Yes, and all these things punish moral wrongdoing where it is also against the collective interest.
...Therefore, I think it is reasonable to require restaurants open to the public to refrain from banning people based on race or gender.
This doesn't seem to follow at all. You haven't said why you think such a ban on these grounds is morally wrong prior to any statute that makes it illegal (I.e. why this is in the same category as preventing fraud).

You don't seem to object to a ban based on age...
As you point out, regulating businesses may be distinct from regulating non-profits. Private Clubs, Schools, and other non-profits may be more exclusionary.
Not clear why the state has more right to regulate one than the other - what's the basis for this ? That you don't think education is part of the economy ?
My position: liberty of movement-- which is a "natural right" -- is more important than a property right, Therefore we must be quite sure the property right's value is significant before we allow someone's property right to trump some else's freedom of movement. Based on this, I'd suggest that we should allow trespassing on private property that is unimproved: meadows and forests, for example, but often prevent it indoors, or on plowed and cultivated fields.
You're in utilitarian mode here, making value judgments about whether some good outweighs another. That is a denial of the concept of rights. To say that someone has a right to life is to say that others have a duty not to kill them whether such a killing would be a net benefit to society or not.

I suspect the flaw in your approach is in conceiving of liberty as a thing. Which leads to inconsistencies when you want to claim that thing as both a natural right and as something that a community may legitimately sacrifice in pursuit of other aims.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 2:00 pmThey are not very diverse with respect to sex, however, there being only two possibilities (plus a few rare cases of hermaphroditism). Or are you merely speaking of a diversity in beliefs about one's sex? I agree there is a wider diversity there, with some of those beliefs being factual and others baseless and false.
GE Morton wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 2:00 pmHeh. What "science" would that be? Have biologists discovered a new sex? That would surely be worthy of a Nobel Prize.
You are just parading your complete ignorance of the subject in public, just like flat-Earthers and evolution deniers. You base your views on long-outdated and disproved claims, eg. conversion therapy, there are only two genders. There is a mountain of information detailing the failure of the psychiatric profession to "cure" transsexuals, which resulted in surgical and chemical approaches, which gained better results than any other.

You continue to make light of the trans suicide rate. If it was any other group, there would be an outcry. Whatever, your apparent view that pushing the least empowered people in society to depression and suicide is the most critical aspect of society, highlights the US's lack of policy focus, with a demonstrated inability to focus on important matters.


GE Morton wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 2:00 pm
You are a self-declared libertarian, yes? You are completely against all government interventions, aside from cases of murder, rape and theft, yes?

So how can you justify government intervention in these areas? Government should not interfere with private business, yes?
Oh, I've given the criterion for morally justifiable government intervention many times ---it is justified in order to prevent or redress infliction of losses or injuries on other moral agents.
That is an invalid justification. It's not the state's job to nanny misbehaving people, right? Let them work it out themselves. If the weak die, then you have a stronger society, right?

There are numerous issues that result in redress and the inflicting of losses on moral agents. White-anting, gossip, hiring and firing, relationship problems, bullying, vilification and other goading, financial dealings gone wrong - the list is almost endless.

So you failed to justify state intervention in cases of murder, rape and theft while denying state intervention in those other areas. You have simply drawn an arbitrary line based on Judeo-Christian principles and embraced it as dogma.
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by heracleitos »

The question, "Democracy versus tyranny", assumes that the solution to problems caused by intrusive Statism can be solved by a better kind of Statism.

Anti-Statist philosophies reject that view:

We will never have better Statism.

We can only have substantially less intrusive Statism.

In economic and financial matters, we can remove, or at least drastically reduce, the role of Statism by switching to Bitcoin. It works because Bitcoin is indestructible. The Statist mafia can try to attack Bitcoin all they want, to no avail.

In personal and family matters, Islam reduces or eliminates Statism by fielding even worse bullies than the Statists. Islam also rigorously fosters family ties, which can be used to construct anti-Statist family-based clans, resulting in strong, alternative mafias.

As an individual, you cannot improve the behavior of the Statist mafia by begging them in vain to behave better. It has never worked, and it will never work. Respect is not obtained by begging for it. It does not work like that, because all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.

By the way, I am always in the market for an additional, voluntary, anti-Statist consensus. If it gives the territorial Statist mafia a nervous breakdown, you count me in!
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 8:32 am
Being part of a network is an attribute, not a reclassification. All groups are networks.
Oh, no. A group is any plurality of objects, especially if located in a particular place or sharing some other similarity. There are no connections between the members of most groups.

Group (noun):
"1. An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the road.
"2. A set of two or more figures that make up a unit or design, as in sculpture.
"3. A number of individuals or things considered or classed together because of similarities: a small group of supporters across the country."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=group
They have nodes (normally people) and those people are, in the context of that group, 'connected'. Thus, a group is a network. The point you miss is that one group-member, or 'node' is both an individual and a member of the group, and neither one undermines the other.
That is also false. First, you seem to be equating groups with societies. Most human groups are not societies, and their members have no connections with one another. And in even in societies members have no connections with most of the other members (I don't count location in a particular territory as a "connection"). But I agree that being an individual and a member of a group do not "undermine" one another; being a member of a group has little or no bearing on one's individuality. The group is merely a plurality of individuals. It has no interests, goals, desires, that are not reducible to the interests, etc., of the individuals who comprise it. That members of the group may interact with some other members doesn't change that fact.
Membership of a group, and individuality, are in balance, one might even say they're 'in harmony'. If I observe that you have arms - you are 'armed' - and you have legs - you are 'legged' - this introduces no conflict. There is nothing about being armed that affects your being legged, or vice versa. You are both things, simultaneously.
Agree with the latter. But social group (society) membership and individuality are often not "in harmony," e.g., when other members of the group interfere with an individual's pursuit of his interests. Social group membership allows cooperation, but also generates conflicts.
The network has no 'needs'. The balance I refer to describes the undesirability of us concentrating on nodes, or on connections, while neglecting the other. A network cannot even exist without both. To concentrate on either one is to deliberately create a skewed and flawed perspective, which leads only to confusion and absurdity.
Well, I'm not sure what this "concentration" involves. Or of what would count as "neglect" of connections. The connections between individuals in a society are formed and maintained only to allow those individuals to satisfy or more effectively pursue their interests. They are means to ends, and are subordinate to those ends. They have no other purpose. You seem to think they have some separate ontological status, or at least some intrinsic value or importance. Can you elaborate on that?
Connections within telephone or computer networks are very much dynamic and volatile. You don't really think the connection you made to your auntie when you 'phoned her is permanent, do you?
I sure do. The connection between my phone and hers is permanent (relatively speaking). It is hard-wired. Only my utilization of it is temporary. Even my cell phone maintains a continuous connection to the network. There is nothing comparable linking individuals "socially" to one another; no permanent, pre-designed, public, "infrastructure." Nuclear family relationships, for most (but not all) people, tend to be long-term. Most other relationships --- even marriages --- are are ad hoc and temporary, persisting only as long as they confer some advantage or benefit.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by GE Morton »

JackDaydream wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 3:16 pm
I don't see why diversity should not extend to LGBTQI issues, including people's choice of pronouns being accepted. I can't see why there should be any issue accepting anyone's choice of sexuality or gender identity.
Well, you may be missing the point. Alfie may prefer to be referred to or addressed with particular pronouns, or imagine himself to be female (or Jesus Christ, or an alien from Betelgeuse, or a cat, or a reincarnation of Napoleon). I'm perfectly willing to allow Alfie to indulge those preferences and fantasies to his heart's content. He should not be punished, tormented, or harassed because of them. But those preferences and fantasies impose no obligations on others to conform their speech to his preferences, or to indulge his fantasies, or to enter into any sort of relationship with him --- because no one has any obligation to do any of those things with respect to anybody. If the State attempts to force Bruno to do any of those things it violates his rights, and he is perfectly entitled to resist those violations.
To deadname people on the basis that they do not appear to one's own expectations of what a man or woman should look like, or on the basis of their chromosomes says a lot about the psychology of the person who has a problem with a person's unique gender identity. With the chromosome argument, its not as if most people have chromosome tests unless there are specific reasons for it, so most people don't know their chromosomes for definite, and it about assumptions oneself and, even assumptions are made about what genitals people have on the basis of a person's appearance.
The issue does not turn on what knowledge people have, but on what knowledge is relevant. Chromosomes and genitalia are determinative of, definitive of, sex, in all mammals, just as chromosomes and morphology are determinative of species. Subjective beliefs and wishes are not; indeed, they're irrelevant.
I am not suggesting that you personally have a problem with LGBTIQ issues, and I am merely writing here in relation to the discussion on such issues. It seems to me that there is so much projected onto trans people, especially on social media. In addition, there can be so much hostility and hatred. I know a transwoman who was beaten up so badly in her 20s that she will have to spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair. Also, there are many instances of trans killings throughout the world, not counting abuse and bullying. It may be hard enough for individuals to work on their identity choices without others making it all such an issue. The strict binary of views on gender identification and the need to conform to this may be one of the biggest factors driving people to alter their bodies and may lessen if there was more open mindedness and tolerance of diversity.
I agree there has been --- and continues to be -- persecution, including all the crimes you mention, of sexually dysphoric people (and of others with other mental health issues). Those criminal acts should not be tolerated, and more tolerance of "oddballs" would be welcome. But no one has any duty to accept (in the sense of indulging their beliefs or entering into relationships with them) anybody.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

I apologise for restarting this discussion; I just don't have the stamina to confront your single-minded intransigence. But I will offer this one comment:
Pattern-chaser wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 8:32 am Connections within telephone or computer networks are very much dynamic and volatile. You don't really think the connection you made to your auntie when you 'phoned her is permanent, do you?
GE Morton wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 10:01 pm I sure do. The connection between my phone and hers is permanent (relatively speaking). It is hard-wired.
No, it is not hard-wired. Your call is connected by software, and the connection disappears when the call is complete. If you and your auntie were here in the UK, then your call would make use of software that I wrote (and a whole lot more written by other designers too). Many man-centuries of programming effort have been devoted to finding ways to move away from hard-wired calls toward dynamically-reconfigurable links.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by Ecurb »

Good_Egg wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 8:26 pm

This is the bit I don't understand. The second sentence seems to undermine the argument you're making with the first.

You seem to be saying first that it's always morally wrong for the state to take a human life because human life is a natural right. Being "natural" means that it exists prior to the state and not at the discretion of the state, and being a right means it imposes a moral obligation on every other human - a right for me is a duty for you and vice versa.

And then in the second sentence you seem to be approving of the state (the community acting collectively) acting to deny some people some of their natural rights. On the grounds that such "limitation" is in pursuit of some collectively-held value (such as order or economic prosperity.

How can you assert a moral obligation and then approve of behaviour that does not fulfil it ?
I suppose "life" is more clearly a natural right than "liberty". The state always limits liberty, because laws always limit liberty. That is the nature of law. Also, your claim is not logically sound. There is no reason to assume that just because some rights (obligations) exist prior to the state, they cannot sometimes be violated because of other moral obligations. If you shoot a home-invader who is axe-murdering your family, for example, you have violated your obligation not to kill.
In general, I think that regulating the economic sector is a legitimate role of government.
Economic prosperity is a legitimate aim, yes. But honouring one's moral obligations means refraining from certain acts. There can be no moral carte blanche to use any and all means in pursuit of a particular aim or to do what one likes in a particular "sector".
You are misunderstanding. Acts (like not allowing black people in one's home) that are legal in the private sector may be properly regulated in the public or economic sector. That was my point. That's because the State has a legitimate interest in regulating the public sector. If the racist wants to ban black people from his own home, the interest of the Public (State) in preventing that is negligible.

Lying is protected by freedom of speech, but lying in advertising constitutes fraud, and is properly illegal. Plagiarism is protected by freedom of speech; I can quote poetry all I want (to the dismay of my listeners) as long I'm not making any money from doing so. Once I start publishing my quotes and selling them, copyrights may infringe on my freedom of speech. Of course limiting someone's natural rights (like life or liberty) is problematic in both the private and public sectors, but all property rights limits liberty. That's all they do, and all they can do. So if we decide we want a society that allows private property, then we have decided we want to legally limit liberty.
...Therefore, I think it is reasonable to require restaurants open to the public to refrain from banning people based on race or gender.
This doesn't seem to follow at all. You haven't said why you think such a ban on these grounds is morally wrong prior to any statute that makes it illegal (I.e. why this is in the same category as preventing fraud).

You don't seem to object to a ban based on age...
Banning people from your restaurant based on race or gender is wrong because there is no rational reason for it, and because it may cause some people to go hungry. See my argument to GE about the man on one square yard of land who is surrounded by property owned by someone else and festooned with "No Trespassing" signs. There often is a rational reason for banning people based on age -- for example underage youths are not allowed to drink alcohol, so they are banned from bars.
As you point out, regulating businesses may be distinct from regulating non-profits. Private Clubs, Schools, and other non-profits may be more exclusionary.
Not clear why the state has more right to regulate one than the other - what's the basis for this ? That you don't think education is part of the economy ?

The economic sector is subject to the whims of the government because property rights (which form the entire basis of the economic sector in Capitalist countries) are granted at the whims of the government. "In order to use property in a particular way," states the State, "You must comply with these rules." Since the only reason you are making money from your property in the first place is the property laws and protection of the State, it seems reasonable that the state can decide what property laws need tweaking. Of course the State also taxes private property and regulates it with zoning laws. But it make sense to me that the economic sector (being public) may be more strictly regulated.
My position: liberty of movement-- which is a "natural right" -- is more important than a property right, Therefore we must be quite sure the property right's value is significant before we allow someone's property right to trump some else's freedom of movement. Based on this, I'd suggest that we should allow trespassing on private property that is unimproved: meadows and forests, for example, but often prevent it indoors, or on plowed and cultivated fields.
You're in utilitarian mode here, making value judgments about whether some good outweighs another. That is a denial of the concept of rights. To say that someone has a right to life is to say that others have a duty not to kill them whether such a killing would be a net benefit to society or not.

I suspect the flaw in your approach is in conceiving of liberty as a thing. Which leads to inconsistencies when you want to claim that thing as both a natural right and as something that a community may legitimately sacrifice in pursuit of other aims.
The community sacrifices all rights in the pursuit of other aims. Even if we ban the death penalty, we would still have war, or self-defense. If our obligation not to kill were total, we could never defend ourselves properly. In the case of liberty, I suggest that utopia must be an anarchy. All laws are violent and coersive, and if we value liberty and non-violence, then all laws are ipso fact a bad thing. Nonetheless, we live in an imperfect wrold and must occasionally perform wicked acts (like passing laws) because they are the lesser of two evils. So I disagree that making value judgments about whether some good outweighs another is a denial of the concept of rights. It is a necessary adjunct to that concept.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by JackDaydream »

GE Morton wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 10:54 pm
JackDaydream wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 3:16 pm
I don't see why diversity should not extend to LGBTQI issues, including people's choice of pronouns being accepted. I can't see why there should be any issue accepting anyone's choice of sexuality or gender identity.
Well, you may be missing the point. Alfie may prefer to be referred to or addressed with particular pronouns, or imagine himself to be female (or Jesus Christ, or an alien from Betelgeuse, or a cat, or a reincarnation of Napoleon). I'm perfectly willing to allow Alfie to indulge those preferences and fantasies to his heart's content. He should not be punished, tormented, or harassed because of them. But those preferences and fantasies impose no obligations on others to conform their speech to his preferences, or to indulge his fantasies, or to enter into any sort of relationship with him --- because no one has any obligation to do any of those things with respect to anybody. If the State attempts to force Bruno to do any of those things it violates his rights, and he is perfectly entitled to resist those violations.
To deadname people on the basis that they do not appear to one's own expectations of what a man or woman should look like, or on the basis of their chromosomes says a lot about the psychology of the person who has a problem with a person's unique gender identity. With the chromosome argument, its not as if most people have chromosome tests unless there are specific reasons for it, so most people don't know their chromosomes for definite, and it about assumptions oneself and, even assumptions are made about what genitals people have on the basis of a person's appearance.
The issue does not turn on what knowledge people have, but on what knowledge is relevant. Chromosomes and genitalia are determinative of, definitive of, sex, in all mammals, just as chromosomes and morphology are determinative of species. Subjective beliefs and wishes are not; indeed, they're irrelevant.
I am not suggesting that you personally have a problem with LGBTIQ issues, and I am merely writing here in relation to the discussion on such issues. It seems to me that there is so much projected onto trans people, especially on social media. In addition, there can be so much hostility and hatred. I know a transwoman who was beaten up so badly in her 20s that she will have to spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair. Also, there are many instances of trans killings throughout the world, not counting abuse and bullying. It may be hard enough for individuals to work on their identity choices without others making it all such an issue. The strict binary of views on gender identification and the need to conform to this may be one of the biggest factors driving people to alter their bodies and may lessen if there was more open mindedness and tolerance of diversity.
I agree there has been --- and continues to be -- persecution, including all the crimes you mention, of sexually dysphoric people (and of others with other mental health issues). Those criminal acts should not be tolerated, and more tolerance of "oddballs" would be welcome. But no one has any duty to accept (in the sense of indulging their beliefs or entering into relationships with them) anybody.
The issue where the topic of gender identification gets particularly complicated in relation to tyranny and democracy is how it is dealt with officially, including in organisations. Say Alfie has changed name legally and is now Freda, with the title Ms. The person goes into the bank and the staff and the staff member dealing with her begin addressing her as 'Sir' and using the pronoun 'he' it would seem an invalidation of identity and lack of respect. On what basis would it be done. Would it because they knew that Freda used to he Alfie or because Freda's voice is deep and she looks masculine? Some people get mistaken for the opposite gender sometimes anyway, so it can be problematic if use of pronouns is made purely on the basis of appearance.

When working in mental health care, I have been in situations where a transgender person is being admitted to hospital and there are so many issues, including where they are going to be placed, especially as so many units are single sexed. That is why there need to be certain policies, but it can be problematic if they don't have some flexibility. That involves the person's presentation. If Freda is admitted to the male section while wearing a purple dress and stockings it is going to be extremely difficult for her. On the other hand, if she still looks like a man in a dress and is admitted to the female section some women might feel unsafe. In some ways, unisex areas can be helpful but this involves a third category which is not always recognised and it can be a problem if someone is forever cast into the third. 10 years down the line, Freda has taken hormones and now looks convincingly female, is it still a problem to admit her to the 'other' section? Some people may say it depends on whether she has had genital surgery, but does this involve asking her? This would be an intrusive question and do other people have the right to know which genitals a person has, or in what circumstances is it relevant.

As for your issue of people being led into the fantasies of the gender dysphoric person it is extremely different from a person believing that they are a horse, for example. That is because gender dysphoria is a recognised diagnosis, and a recognised gender identity. In many instances, people may go about living in their chosen identity, with or without treatment without people even realising. You may pass Freda in the street and not realise that she used to be Alfie. If you later got to know her past would you wish to start saying 'him' rather than 'her'.

All these issues are important in policy making and in daily living. It is sometimes possible to try to avoid pronouns in situations where there is uncertainty. Perhaps, rather than rigidity a certain amount of sensitivity is called for. Each person has a unique story leading to their gender identity and, of course, there are various intersex conditions. There are some overlaps between the two but understanding the differences in the terms is important. All of these factors, raise so many areas which make the differences between tyranny and democracy very intricate, in getting the balance.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 9:59 am
GE Morton wrote: May 21st, 2022, 7:58 pm They don't have any such right. They only have a right to walk on land not owned by someone else, just as they only have right to pick apples not owned by someone else. You're again invoking the absurd "lost opportunity" argument.
This is clearly incorrect. Perhaps "right" is not the correct word, but before someone owned a parcel of land, everyone had the ability to righteously walk across it without being arrested.
Of course they had the ability. Everyone has the ability to kill each other. But the question is, How do rights arise? When is a claim to some good or action valid and "righteous"?
Since all rights are simply the flip side of obligations, clearly all rights (including property rights) oblige people to behave in a particullar way. If someone is obligated to (for example) associate with black people, he has lost the right to avoid so associating. This, of course, is your argument in favor of racist restauranteers. However, since the restaurant is owned by a racist, black people are (or were before the laws changed) obligated not to enter the restaurant because of his property rights. There is no reductio ad absurdum. Obligations inevitably involve a loss of freedom. The notion that freedom is only "potential" is true, of course, but losing it remains a loss.
Yes, all rights entail losses of freedom for those obliged to respect them. Your right to life eliminates my freedom to kill you; your right to liberty eliminates my freedom to enslave you, etc. That is the whole purpose of that concept, "rights": to limit the freedom of each person in a social setting to those acts which inflict no loss or injury on other people. A person excluded from a privately owned restaurant, however, suffers no loss of freedom due to the exclusion, because before that restaurant opened no one was free to patronize it. The excluded person has lost nothing. Restauranteurs (nor anyone else) have no obligation to expand anyone's freedoms.

And you seem to have missed the point of the reductio ad absurdum argument. It applies to "lost opportunities" arguments, and the contention that lost opportunities are losses of welfare. They aren't, and if Alfie may not seize an opportunity, then neither may Bruno or anyone else to whom it presents itself. And an opportunity which cannot be seized is not an "opportunity" at all.
Suppose a black man lived on a tiny square of land, consisting of one square yard. The land around him was all owned by a racist, who decreed that no black people could set foot on his property. Are you suggesting that the black man's right to "freedom of movement" is NOT limited by property ownership? Come on now! That's ridiculous.
Heh. What is ridiculous is the notion that anyone would buy, or even accept as a gift, a square yard of land lacking access.
I know what "free association" means, GE. But nobody has a right to free association in all circumstances. If, for example, the racist store owner goes out of his store into the street, he must associate with all sorts of people.
Well, now you're using "association" with a looser (and dubious) meaning than intended in the phrase "freedom of association." The term there refers to intentional interpersonal relationships entered into for some mutual benefit. Merely being in the presence of other people doesn't entail one is associating with them in that sense.

"Associate (transitive verb):
"1: to join as a partner, friend, or companion"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/associate
It's true that such laws prevent him from discriminating in one particular way -- with regard to a store that is open to the public. He is still free to associate with whomever he chooses in his house, festooned as it is with burning crosses and nooses hanging from trees. But just as his "right" to free association is limited when he is out in public, it is also limited when he is in a public place of business, whether is the owner or not.
The scope of the freedom of association embraces all interpersonal relationships. Your distinction between his house and his business is gratuitous and arbitrary. And as just said, being "out in public" is not "associating" with others who may also be out. Someone who prefers not to be in the presence of certain others is perfectly free to avoid entering places where they are.
The conflicting rights of property ownership and freedom of movement have, in this case, been resolved by law in favor of freedom of movement.
Property rights inherently limit freedom of movement, as noted above. That is their very purpose.
Since all rights (and all laws) limit freedom, we shouldn't whine when one set of rights (i.e. one set of limits on freedom) wins out over another, especially when the moral issues involved are so clear.
Well, you have a 4-term fallacy going there. "Rights" in the first clause refers to natural and common rights; "rights" in the second refers to fiat rights ("frights"). "Rights" in the first clause have a moral basis, as previously given. "Rights" in the second are arbitrary, ad hoc inventions of politicians. Hence the argument is invalid.
Since property rights are common rights, determined by law rather than by nature, it is reasonable to create them and legislate them in a morally sound manner. ONe way in which we have done so is by requiring store owners not to discriminate in certain ways.
Er, no. Common rights are not "determined by law." (Sound) laws merely recognize them. They are determined per the first possession rule, as are the natural rights. But unlike the things to which one has natural rights, one does not bring the things to which one may gain common rights with them into the world. They are acquired after one's arrival.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Democracy and tyranny. Is there a middle ground?

Post by GE Morton »

Sy Borg wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 8:38 pm
GE Morton wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 2:00 pmThey are not very diverse with respect to sex, however, there being only two possibilities (plus a few rare cases of hermaphroditism). Or are you merely speaking of a diversity in beliefs about one's sex? I agree there is a wider diversity there, with some of those beliefs being factual and others baseless and false.
GE Morton wrote: May 22nd, 2022, 2:00 pmHeh. What "science" would that be? Have biologists discovered a new sex? That would surely be worthy of a Nobel Prize.
You are just parading your complete ignorance of the subject in public, just like flat-Earthers and evolution deniers. You base your views on long-outdated and disproved claims, eg. conversion therapy, there are only two genders. There is a mountain of information detailing the failure of the psychiatric profession to "cure" transsexuals, which resulted in surgical and chemical approaches, which gained better results than any other.
I said nothing about conversion therapy. Nor did I advocate that they be "cured," or any particular method of "curing." Whether a dysphoric person wishes to attempt conversion or a "cure" --- or cosmetic surgery --- is his/her decision to make. It is none of my business. My only interest in dysphorias and other mental (or physical) ailments or oddities are government policies which attempt to force third parties to indulge or associate with persons suffering from them. If male Alfie believes he is female or wishes he were and seeks surgical alterations to bolster that belief, that is his decision to make. Whether Bruno will consider him a female, address him as a female, or form any kind of relationship with him is HIS decision to make, and he is morally justified in ignoring any state dictates to the contrary.

It is not, BTW, within the purview of the psychiatric profession to define "sex." That is a biological term, used to denote the two complementary suites of anatomical structures involved in reproduction in most terrestrial animals and many plants as well. Shrinks, other "social scientists," and certainly politicians have no standing to alter its definition. They're encroaching upon territory in which they have no competence.
You continue to make light of the trans suicide rate. If it was any other group, there would be an outcry.
Well, that is clearly false. As I said, many other people commit suicide, for many different reasons. There is no public outcry about those, either (though the gun-banners hype it a lot). Like "sex change" surgery, suicide is a personal matter, in which the State has no legitimate interest. You believe otherwise because you view the State as Mommy and Daddy, and everyone else as their children (and hence as brothers and sisters). I.e., you've embraced the "organic fallacy." That weltanschauuung is false at its root, and so are the assumptions deriving from it.
That is an invalid justification. It's not the state's job to nanny misbehaving people, right? Let them work it out themselves. If the weak die, then you have a stronger society, right?
Yes, that is the State's job. But refusing to address a man with "she" is not "misbehaving."
There are numerous issues that result in redress and the inflicting of losses on moral agents. White-anting, gossip, hiring and firing, relationship problems, bullying, vilification and other goading, financial dealings gone wrong - the list is almost endless.
Well, you've lumped together a number of disparate things there. Financial fraud and bullying (in the legal sense) inflict losses; hiring and firing, "relationship problems," "vilification," "goading" (unless it involves a threat of force ) do not. A loss is a tangible, measurable reduction in welfare. And I have no idea what "white-anting" is, but since it appears to be some sort of newly-coined Newspeak term, it probably doesn't either.
Locked

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