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
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

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

Post by heracleitos »

Sy Borg wrote: May 19th, 2022, 9:48 pm GE Morton simply believes that, if people are weak, then they do not deserve any protection whatsoever from the state but they should instead be simply left to die.
Concerning the societally weak, Islamic law arranges funding by creating the moral obligation for the believers who accept Islam to provide yearly 10% of harvests and 2.5% of monetary assets above the threshold ("zakaat"), to the poor and the needy, of whom in priority extended-family relatives.

The law is enforced by the believer's conscience.

Any charity funding provided over and beyond mandatory charity is termed "sadaqah".

In my opinion, this principle does not allow for the state to substitute the religious charity levy by taxation, if only, because it would prevent the believers from prioritizing extended-family relatives.

Furthermore, it would also prevent the believers from withholding charity from individuals engaging in serious misbehavior or other offenses against religious law, as it is not permitted for these individuals to seek to benefit from assistance instituted by the very same laws that one rejects.
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 19th, 2022, 9:40 pm

You're begging the question --- that question being, "Ought the State dictate to individuals with whom they must enter into relationships or invite upon their premises?" If you accept the principle of free association, the answer is clearly "no".

Memo to GE: There are no "divine rights of property ownership." Perhaps St. Locke and St. Hobbes disagree, but unlike some I don't worship at the altar of their holy words. Property rights (as we've discussed ad nauseum) are culturally determined. In many countries, that means that there are rules regulating what owners may and may not do. If someone owns a restaurant, he may not refuse to serve people because of their race. Further, he cannot deny entry to health inspectors (however much he might regret associating with them); he must pay property taxes (some of which support causes of which he disapproves); he must get a State liquor license; and he must pay his employees minnimum wage.

If he doesn't like the rules, he can get out of the restaurant business and find a more apporpriate job, like mucking out outhouses. He will then be free to associate with whomever he desires (outside of work). So it is possible to accept the right of people to associate with whomever they want, and yet believe that in their business dealings they (whether owners or employees) must play by the rules. If they don't abide by the law, they should be forced to associate with first the police, then a judge, and finally a cellmate.
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 urb That the State does dictate many things is not in question.

But the quote to which you were responding asks what the State ought to do.

Your reply seems to seek to blur this distinction.

For the State to decree something does not make it right; believing that it does is to confuse statutory rights and duties with moral rights and duties.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
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 20th, 2022, 10:11 am @Ecurb urb That the State does dictate many things is not in question.

But the quote to which you were responding asks what the State ought to do.

Your reply seems to seek to blur this distinction.

For the State to decree something does not make it right; believing that it does is to confuse statutory rights and duties with moral rights and duties.
GE was the one who stated
Private businesses, just as all other private property, are only "open" to whomever the owner says they are open. No one has any "right" to enter upon someone else property. Entering is a privilege, which may be extended to anyone the owner wishes or withheld from any one he wishes, and that privilege, if granted, may be revoked at any time.
He seems to think that private property is somehow outside of the aegis of property law. I (on the other hand) think that the notion of property is culturally and legally determined. Should restaurants be required to serve black people if they are open to the public? I think so. I also think (as I stated in my last post) that claiming that this restricts freedom of association (as GE claimed) is ridiculous. The restaurant owner may associate with whomever he chooses -- but his ownership of the restaurant does not (and should not) give him the right to refuse to serve people on the basis of race.

If property rights are determined through law and culture, this is obvious. ONly if (as GE seems to believe) they are "natural" or "divine" do such laws constitute restriction on freedom of association, because then the property right would supercede the State's right to determine what constitutes a property right. If (as is the case) property is just another statutory provenance, then we may attach whatever riders we see fit. These might include easements (paths along bodies of water are often open to the public even if they are on privately owned land), property taxes, or, requirements placed on businesses to comply with the law.

Yes. I believe that requiring stores and resaurants to refrain from discriminating based on race is a reasonable "easement". Nor do I think that this can be disputed by claiming that property owners have some "natural right" to ban people from their property.
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 19th, 2022, 8:00 pm
So the right goad people into killing themselves is more important to you than trying to avoid what should be easily preventable suicide. Noted.
"The right goad people into killing themselves"? Really? Could anyone "goad" you into killing yourself? About 45,000 people in the US commit suicide every year, most of them not gay or "trans." No "goading" necessary. But, no, I don't consider it my place --- or yours --- to prevent anyone from killing themselves. That is their decision to make, not mine. If the suicidal person were someone close to me, I might try to dissuade them. But that is not the job of the State. It is none of anyone else's business.
Since you deny the validity of transgenderism, you make clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. You failed to acquaint yourself with the decades of science leading to today's situation. Yours are old, long discounted, arguments. Bringing you up to speed would be akin to convincing a flat-Earther than planets are oblate spheroids. Not worth my time, especially given your inability to admit being wrong on any issue.
Yikes --- "transgenderism"? We now have a new "-ism"? Apart from the preposterous claims that there are "transgendered" persons, what are the tenets of this -ism?

Yes, there is no such thing as a "transgendered" person, or any other animal. If the animal has two X chromosomes in each cell of its body, it is female, by definition. If an X and a Y, it is male, by definition. No female has ever "transitioned" to a male, or vice versa. That idiocy rests on the assumption that a person's sex is determined by what sex he or she believes he or she is, or wishes to be. That is not how descriptive language works. Descriptions are only useful when they set forth empirically verifiable features of the thing being described, not someone's subjective wishes regarding it. A person is properly described as a "doctor" when he has completed medical school and practices medicine, not when he merely wishes he was a doctor. A person is properly called "John Doe" if that is the name on his birth certificate, driver's license, etc., even though he believes he is Jesus Christ. "Furries" are correctly described as humans, even though they believe they are "really" cats or bears. In a recent scandal in my city that gained some notoriety, a Caucasian woman who served as president of the local NAACP chapter pretended for years to be black. She had no African ancestry. After her parents "outed" her, she persisted in claiming she was "really" black, and due to some cosmic mistake, had been born with a Caucasian body. She insisted that she be "considered" black, because that is what she "felt" she was.

No, Sy. We don't base a person's description on their delusions. We base it on observable facts about them.
I would prefer that you did not post on this thread, as I am seeing sensible contributions from those equipped to make meaningful comments.
Well, of course you would. All proponents of nonsensical dogmas and indefensible policies resent challenges to them, and suppress them if possible. Putin is doing his best to suppress domestic critics of his war.
Please can we all address the thread topic?
As I said earlier, the thread topic itself is incoherent. Democracy and tyranny are not opposites, not two ends of a spectrum. The two terms denote different features of a polity. The other end of the "democracy" spectrum is autocracy; the other end of the "tyranny" spectrum is liberty, or liberalism. You need to consider those separately.
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 19th, 2022, 9:48 pm GE Morton simply believes that, if people are weak, then they do not deserve any protection whatsoever from the state but they should instead be simply left to die.
*Tsk* *tsk*. I've never said any such thing, Sy. The "weak" deserve the same protection by the State as everyone else --- protection from foreign invaders and domestic violators of their rights. The very notion of "protected classes" runs afoul of the 14th Amendment's mandate that all persons enjoy "equal protection of the law."
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 20th, 2022, 9:32 am
Memo to GE: There are no "divine rights of property ownership." Perhaps St. Locke and St. Hobbes disagree, but unlike some I don't worship at the altar of their holy words.
"Divine rights"? Whoever claimed there were?

It would be helpful if you'd address arguments actually made, rather than straw men of your own invention.
Property rights (as we've discussed ad nauseum) are culturally determined.
That's true. "Rights" is a social concept. But they're not politically determined. Who has rights to what is determined by historical facts involving the claimant and the thing to which the right is claimed.
In many countries, that means that there are rules regulating what owners may and may not do.
That's true too. The question is, which of those rules are rationally and morally justifiable? In general, rules aimed to prevent someone from inflicting harms or losses on others are justifiable. A restaurant, for example, may be prohibited from serving tainted food, or fraudulently describing what they're serving. On the other hand, rules aimed at promoting some ideologue's Utopian vision, based upon the tenets of some archaic religion or upon a mistaken conception of the structure of human societies, if those rules infringe the owner's natural rights (such as the right of free association), are not justifiable, and impose no moral duties upon that owner.
If someone owns a restaurant, he may not refuse to serve people because of their race. Further, he cannot deny entry to health inspectors (however much he might regret associating with them); he must pay property taxes (some of which support causes of which he disapproves); he must get a State liquor license; and he must pay his employees minnimum wage.
He may be obliged to admit health inspectors, since they are necessary to enforce the "do no harm" principle. He must also pay taxes, to the extent he benefits from the services for which those taxes pay. But he has no duty to serve anyone, enter into any kind of relationship (economic or otherwise) with any particular person, or to pay anyone any particular wage. The latter is a private matter to be negotiated between employer and employee. It is none of the State's (or "public's") business.
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 20th, 2022, 3:02 pm

"Divine rights"? Whoever claimed there were?

It would be helpful if you'd address arguments actually made, rather than straw men of your own invention.....


That's true. "Rights" is a social concept. But they're not politically determined. Who has rights to what is determined by historical facts involving the claimant and the thing to which the right is claimed.

.
Obviously, I know that you don't believe in divinities. However, you are mistaken about the nature of "property rights". They are determined by the legal system, and involve not a relationship between a claimant and a "thing", but between two claimants vis a vis the "thing". You may think property rights are determined by historical facts (such as "first possession"), but you are wrong. Property Rights are negotiated and determined by tradition and law.

That's true too. The question is, which of those rules are rationally and morally justifiable? In general, rules aimed to prevent someone from inflicting harms or losses on others are justifiable. A restaurant, for example, may be prohibited from serving tainted food, or fraudulently describing what they're serving. On the other hand, rules aimed at promoting some ideologue's Utopian vision, based upon the tenets of some archaic religion or upon a mistaken conception of the structure of human societies, if those rules infringe the owner's natural rights (such as the right of free association), are not justifiable, and impose no moral duties upon that owner.
Of course I agree that some rules may be morally unjustified. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, the property rights of the owner of a restaurant do NOT infringe on any "natural rights of free association" he may have. That's because he does not own the restaurant on the basis of a "natural right". He can associate freely whenever he wants to, but just as an easement allowing people to walk through his land along a river doesn't interfere with his right of free association, neither does a rule prohibiting him from banning black people from his restaurant. Nobody forced him to own a restaurant. If he doesn't like the rules of ownership, he can sell.

The problem with your position, GE, is that it implies that property rights occur naturally, and when what you deem as proper property rights (i.e. rights to control other people vis a vis an inanimate object) are limited by law, that interferes with natural human rights (like free association). That's why I called them "divine rights". Where they derive, if not from a divinity, is unclear. In my opinion, and in that of all other reasonable people, property rights derive from the traditions and laws of the culture in which they exist. This being the case, it's ridiculous to claim that restaurant owners have a "property right" to associate in their restaurant only with those people of whom they approve. The legally and culturally constituted rules regulating their property explicitly state that this is not the case.

You are free to wish fervently for a return to segregated restaurants. However, if you want to argue that segregating one's restaurant is a natural right, based on the natural right of free association, you are simply incorrect. For that to be true, both the right of free association and the right to control others vis a vis your property must be "natural" or "divine". Property rights are not. Perhaps the black man wants to freely associate with someone sitting in the restaurant. Why is depriving him of the natural right to free association not equally unjustified with depriving the owner of his? Why always support "property rights", instead of rights to freedom of movement, or expression, or (even) association?
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 20th, 2022, 11:23 am
The restaurant owner may associate with whomever he chooses -- but his ownership of the restaurant does not (and should not) give him the right to refuse to serve people on the basis of race.
LOL. That statement is flatly self-contradictory. I'm amazed that contradiction is invisible to you. But dogmas tend to place blinders on their "true believers."
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 20th, 2022, 3:52 pm
Of course I agree that some rules may be morally unjustified. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, the property rights of the owner of a restaurant do NOT infringe on any "natural rights of free association" he may have.
You're actually correct there. (Most) property rights are not natural rights; they are "common rights." The only property to which one has a natural right is the right to one's body. But I'm a little puzzled by your claim, " . . . the property rights of the owner of a restaurant do NOT infringe on any 'natural rights of free association' he may have." You're right, of course, but . . . who claimed they did? Did you mean to say something else there?

There are two rights involved in the restaurant example --- the "common" property right to the restaurant (assuming the proprietor is the owner), and the right of free association. The former allows that owner to decide who may enter upon his property, and under what conditions. The right of free association allows him to decide with whom he will do business. The latter, unlike the property right, is a natural liberty right.
He can associate freely whenever he wants to, but just as an easement allowing people to walk through his land along a river doesn't interfere with his right of free association, neither does a rule prohibiting him from banning black people from his restaurant. Nobody forced him to own a restaurant. If he doesn't like the rules of ownership, he can sell.
Well, that is a poorly chosen example. No one has an easement allowing them to walk through someone else's land, along a river or anywhere else, unless the owner has granted that person such an easement. Such a privilege granted by some third party, such as the State, would not be an easement, but a "taking," and would require payment of just compensation:

"[The California statute] is simply an expression of the Commission's belief that the public interest will be served by a continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast. The Commission may well be right that it is a good idea, but that does not establish that the Nollans (and other coastal residents) alone can be compelled to contribute to its realization. Rather, California is free to advance its 'comprehensive program,' if it wishes, by using its power of eminent domain for this "public purpose," see U.S.Const., Amdt. 5; but if it wants an easement across the Nollans' property, it must pay for it."

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... on-1957267
The problem with your position, GE, is that it implies that property rights occur naturally . . .
No, it doesn't. Property rights (other than one's right to one's body) are not natural rights.
. . . and when what you deem as proper property rights (i.e. rights to control other people vis a vis an inanimate object) are limited by law, that interferes with natural human rights (like free association).
Same confusion as noted above. Property rights and the right of free association are two distinct rights.
Where they derive, if not from a divinity, is unclear.
Whence they derive is perfectly clear. I'm pretty sure we've covered this ground before. Property rights arise with first possession:

"To gain possession, then, a man must stand in a certain physical relation to the object and to the rest of the world, and must have a certain intent. These relations and this intent are the facts of which we are in search."

--- Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (1881, Lecture VI, 216)

"Behind nearly every system for establishing property rights lies the basic notion of first possession. This rule grants an ownership claim to the party that gains control before other potential claimants. Gaius, the first-century Roman commentator, stated the ancient rule clearly: “What presently belongs to no one becomes by natural reason the property of the first taker” (Mommsen and Watson, 1985, Book 41, section 1)."

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... 5-011/html

Here is one of the better histories:

https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/1st%20poss%20 ... lgrave.doc
In my opinion, and in that of all other reasonable people, property rights derive from the traditions and laws of the culture in which they exist.
From the traditions and practices of the culture, but not from the laws; the laws in common law countries (regarding property ownership) merely codify those pre-existing rights and practices. All (natural and common) rights precede laws.
The legally and culturally constituted rules regulating their property explicitly state that this is not the case.
Laws that conflict with natural or common rights have no moral force, and fiat "rights" ("frights") conjured from thin air by politicians have no moral significance.
Why always support "property rights", instead of rights to freedom of movement, or expression, or (even) association?
Oh, I support all of those as well. That is an odd remark, in a discussion debating whether the State may dictate what pronouns a person chooses to use, and whether it may dictate with whom a person must do business, and in which you defend infringement of those freedoms --- and then, bizarrely, pretend there is no infringement.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: May 20th, 2022, 1:24 pm
Sy Borg wrote: May 19th, 2022, 9:48 pm GE Morton simply believes that, if people are weak, then they do not deserve any protection whatsoever from the state but they should instead be simply left to die.
*Tsk* *tsk*. I've never said any such thing, Sy. The "weak" deserve the same protection by the State as everyone else --- protection from foreign invaders and domestic violators of their rights. The very notion of "protected classes" runs afoul of the 14th Amendment's mandate that all persons enjoy "equal protection of the law."
Disingenuous again.

For you, the weak must be left to be mentally destroyed by any bullies or psychopaths who choose to destroy them, and the state must not ever protect those weak people, no matter how injured, disabled or marginalised they may be. If they are weak, you advocate letting the strong destroy them mentally and emotionally, if that is how the strong wish to exercise their freedom.

This neo-Darwinism is a keystone of your politics. You care nothing for the poor, the disabled, the queer, animals or for nature. To you, these entities are all weak and therefore open to exploitation in any way that suits the strong - with no interventions from the state to protect culture or diversity.

Social democracy, flawed as it is, is vastly more coherent, rational and moral than your biased fake libertarianism, which is actually just authoritarianism masquerading as "freedom". You advocate freedom in all areas but those important to the left - such as the freedom to simply exist without being harassed into an early grave.

A government of your choice would immediately bring out the tear gas, guns and jackboots to disperse any left-wing protest marches that disrupted traffic and business activity.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton, the logical extension of your ideology is that it is wrong for the state to forbid murder, rape and theft, because this inhibits the right of people who wish to steal, rape and murder.

How can you justify rules forbidding murder, rape and theft?

It's none of the state's business, right? Let individuals and groups fight it out between themselves, and good luck to those left alive ...
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

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

Post by Sy Borg »

heracleitos wrote: May 20th, 2022, 12:35 am
Sy Borg wrote: May 19th, 2022, 9:48 pm GE Morton simply believes that, if people are weak, then they do not deserve any protection whatsoever from the state but they should instead be simply left to die.
Concerning the societally weak, Islamic law arranges funding by creating the moral obligation for the believers who accept Islam to provide yearly 10% of harvests and 2.5% of monetary assets above the threshold ("zakaat"), to the poor and the needy, of whom in priority extended-family relatives.

The law is enforced by the believer's conscience.

Any charity funding provided over and beyond mandatory charity is termed "sadaqah".

In my opinion, this principle does not allow for the state to substitute the religious charity levy by taxation, if only, because it would prevent the believers from prioritizing extended-family relatives.

Furthermore, it would also prevent the believers from withholding charity from individuals engaging in serious misbehavior or other offenses against religious law, as it is not permitted for these individuals to seek to benefit from assistance instituted by the very same laws that one rejects.
It's not actually an alternative, though. The Islamic system runs under theocratic dictatorships, and the thread seeks alternatives to democracy (as it is, in a weakened form) and dictatorships aka tyranny. I haven't had much luck with the search so far, to say the least :lol:

Maybe the Scandinavian model, with very high taxes and but excellent safety nets? Aside from tax, there's more controls and bureaucracy. The advantages are stability and much more effective use of its human capital, by treating its people with more respect.
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

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

Post by heracleitos »

Sy Borg wrote: May 20th, 2022, 8:51 pm It's not actually an alternative, though.
Islamic law is a real consensus, i.e. voluntary, while taxation is not. If a system is not voluntary, it has no real staying power. This also applies to Islam itself. The Ottoman empire is gone now, but Islamic law has only grown stronger.

Taxation ultimately rests on the hope that the ruling mafia will manage to stay in power.

The inevitable long-term collapse of the regime will therefore lead to a wholesale decimation of the poor and needy who rely on it as their only source of support. A good example is the collapse of the Soviet Union which led to cutting life expectancy by more than a decade. Every elderly who depended on the system to survive, simply died off.
Sy Borg wrote: May 20th, 2022, 8:51 pm The Islamic system runs under theocratic dictatorships, and the thread seeks alternatives to democracy (as it is, in a weakened form) and dictatorships aka tyranny.
Islam has more than successfully survived the collapse of the Ottoman empire. Islam does not need the ruling mafia for its survival. On the contrary, it thrives even more when it is in conflict with the ruling mafia.

A government is not a legitimate "consensus". It is primarily based on coercion. That is why it cannot survive long term.
Sy Borg wrote: May 20th, 2022, 8:51 pm Maybe the Scandinavian model, with very high taxes and but excellent safety nets? Aside from tax, there's more controls and bureaucracy. The advantages are stability and much more effective use of its human capital, by treating its people with more respect.
The Scandinavian regime won't even survive the next state bankruptcy, or the next bout of hyperinflation. Everyone who depends on it for their survival will simply die off along with the regime.

People who primarily depend on the State for their survival, are doomed, because all that needs to happen, is that the State treasury becomes empty. These people won't be able to count on family or community because they never invested in these things. Islam automatically de-prioritizes that demographic.

By the way, just wait until the Euro starts hyperinflating. The government will still have "money" but it will be worthless.

Next, look at how many people, especially elderly, in these Scandinavian countries will die like flies. A few years later, half of the population on welfare and government handouts will have died off.

An aging population does not just keep aging endlessly. That is a naive and very simplistic view on the matter.

Instead of having herd immunity, they develop a tendency for attracting and spreading epidemics that rapidly decimates them. They effectively have herd anti-immunity. It is not merely a funding problem. It is also a biological one.

There are so many reasons why they will die off rapidly that the concern of how to pay for retirement benefits will even become largely irrelevant.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

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

Post by GE Morton »

heracleitos wrote: May 20th, 2022, 10:12 pm
People who primarily depend on the State for their survival, are doomed, because all that needs to happen, is that the State treasury becomes empty. These people won't be able to count on family or community because they never invested in these things. Islam automatically de-prioritizes that demographic.
Not to mention that they've never learned how to support themselves, or even imagined they had any obligation to do so. Your statement there reminds me of an oft-quote observation of Alexander Tytler: "Democracy is inevitably but a temporary form of government. It only endures until the people discover they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury."
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