Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

Humans-Only Club for Discussion & Debate

A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.

Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.


Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
#394759
Pattern-chaser wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:46 am
It's interesting that you focus on fairness. This is an issue that cannot be fair to all at the same time, I think. If we fail to interfere, the greedy rich will use 'trickle-up', and other nefarious tricks, to capture all the money.
GE Morton wrote: September 16th, 2021, 12:52 pm There is no wealth to "capture." Whatever wealth exists has been produced by someone; it is not a God-given gift in limited supply...
Most wealth is wrested directly from the environment, by mining or otherwise. The extraction may take work, but the coal/diamonds/etc come from "God" (i.e. the Earth), and are definitely "in limited supply". Centuries ago, we thought the resources were infinite, in practice, at least. Now that our 'need' for resources has become so huge, their finite nature is obvious.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
By Belindi
#394768
Mystery wrote:
but how can it be done to add instinct to ethics, that's a very interesting idea ?
It's not my idea. It has been a main theme of the Romantic tradition which elevates subjective experience.
Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.
(Wikipedia)

Philosophical materialism is a theory of existence that is antithetical to Romanticism. Idealism(immaterialism) (which has been unfashionable for much of 20th century and to date ) is needed to supplant materialism. It is obvious from many posts on this forum that materialism retains popular support.
By GE Morton
#394769
Pattern-chaser wrote: September 16th, 2021, 12:55 pm Mostly, surviving has to do with the pie being smaller than the sum total of what we all want, so if you are to be richer, someone must end up poorer.
That's the "Manna from Heaven" assumption again.

"Poorer" . . . than what or whom?

Alfie plants and harvests a bushel of corn, builds a house, digs a well. Bruno does none of those things. Do you mean Bruno will be poorer than Alfie?
Of course. But he doesn't "end up" poorer because Alfie is wealthier. His welfare --- his lack of food, shelter, water --- is unchanged by anything Alfie did. It would be the same if Alfie never existed.
By GE Morton
#394770
Pattern-chaser wrote: September 16th, 2021, 1:00 pm
Most wealth is wrested directly from the environment, by mining or otherwise. The extraction may take work, but the coal/diamonds/etc come from "God" (i.e. the Earth), and are definitely "in limited supply". Centuries ago, we thought the resources were infinite, in practice, at least. Now that our 'need' for resources has become so huge, their finite nature is obvious.
That's all true, and irrelevant. The question is who is entitled to a particular natural good, regardless of the limits on its supply. And the answer is, the person who discovered it and put it to beneficial use. Had it not been for that person no one would benefit from it.

No one pays for natural goods. They are all free. What you pay for is the time, talent, and effort invested by people to find those goods, extract them, and transform them into something useful and therefore valuable.
User avatar
By Sy Borg
#394792
Sy Borg wrote: September 16th, 2021, 1:23 amIn order to survive, one needs to kill, steal from, exploit or displace others.
GE Morton wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:58 am If you're speaking of humans in a social setting, that claim is ridiculous.
If you are vegan hermit, then you probably don't do those things.

However, in truth, you kill animals constantly. You are the beneficiary of a government prepared to invade sovereign nations and kill many thousands of people and other species so as to access their resources. Your government routinely exploits and manipulates weaker nations with useful resources.

So yes, almost all humans kill, steal from, exploit AND displace others, because we do it in blocs. Most of us are perfectly delightful one-on-one because we can get tough guys to do the dirty work for us.

Your claim that humans are the only creatures that do not kill, steal from, exploit or displace others - when we are BY FAR the worst in these things - is not just ridiculous, it might be the biggest oversight - the very most wrong statement - I have ever seen on the forum from a secular member. It's especially ironic since you come from one of the murder capitals of the world where almost everyone is complaining about being exploited.
By GE Morton
#394812
chewybrian wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:41 am
GE Morton wrote: September 15th, 2021, 11:38 am First, I consider "morals" and "ethics" to be synonymous terms, in the context of moral philosophy.
This explains a lot.

I believe that ethics are situational and apply to everyone who holds a certain title or is in a given situation of trust. Shoot, even lawyers have ethics! Ethics say that a doctor has a duty to help someone in medical distress when he is able . . . [etc.).

Morality involves general ideas of right and wrong that largely apply to everyone all the time. But, morality is also a personal judgement. It is an attempt to be a good person, or perhaps to judge whether or not someone else is a good person . . .
I'm aware that in popular usage the terms have somewhat different meanings. That's why I said "in the context of moral philosophy."

Some moral philosophers have titled their works "Ethics," e.g., Aristotle, Spinoza, Sidgwick, G.E. Moore, et al. Others have titled them "Morals," e.g., Hume, Kant, Sam Harris, et al.

In moral philosophy the terms are interchangeable.

"Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch[1] of philosophy that 'involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior'. The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology.

"Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Your system presupposes that you have chosen the most fair possible way to distribute wealth, and that wealth or property are the true goals of life.
Oh, please. Please read the posts you're purporting to criticize, try to understand what is being said, and respond relevantly. The theory I've been presenting make no presumptions of any sort regarding distributing wealth, though it does draw some conclusions about that from the Axiom and postulates. And it certainly doesn't assert that "wealth and property are the true goals of life." There are no "true goals of life." That is a meaningless phrase. The only goals there are, are those individuals set for themselves, and those vary from person to person.
Morality is getting companies to pay their share of taxes, to stop hiding their profits and polluting and exploiting labor overseas. It is housing the poor and granting the right to basic health care to all (medicare for all, for example).
Well, no. Morality is a set of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. If you believe people have a duty to pay more taxes and for other people's health care, you need to present some rational argument, derived from some self-evident, morally neutral premises, for such duties, rather than asserting them dogmatically. That is what distinguishes moral philosophy from political demagoguery, soap-box sermons, and emotional rants.
User avatar
By mystery
#394813
Pattern-chaser wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:46 am
mystery wrote: September 16th, 2021, 7:29 am as long as we have a free market system we will have rich and poor due to chance, effort, and wisdom that is not granted or not applied in equal measures and never can be.

...

so what power of choice should the poor receive and how will it help and how is it fair?
It's interesting that you focus on fairness. This is an issue that cannot be fair to all at the same time, I think. If we fail to interfere, the greedy rich will use 'trickle-up', and other nefarious tricks, to capture all the money. It isn't fair that the rich get all of the money; not fair to the non-rich, I mean. And if we do interfere, the rich will be reduced to only one ocean-going yacht each, and they (if no-one else) will consider this unfair.

Whatever moral/political system is in place, there will be some who feel they have been treated unfairly. I think the best we can do is to attempt to be as fair as possible to as many of the community as possible, rich and poor, male and female, young and old, and so on ad infinitum. It's a practical compromise that is required, I think.
I believe I understand your argument on this. If I extend it into practice worldwide both you and I will be in the bucket considered rich. In this model you suggest, we shall be limited to one small car perhaps and a home that is perhaps only 50 square meters and one bathroom. This reduction may not be enough to truly bring equality to all, because so very many worldwide have less than I just suggested. For this model to truly work, you and I also will have to sacrifice much of our hard work to others that have far less than us. It is not only the yachts but also meat with every meal or unlimited clean water...

what I find often in this debate topic is that many always look only up to find adjustments, we see only those that have more and want them to liquidate a yacht. the real magic starts when we look down, and see the vastness of the below. we can help those without any conflict, only by choosing to do so. usually, after this is pointed out and understood the crowd clears because the clarity of the situation is now foggy...

yes, the rich... control much. but within that much, are many ppl that enjoy wealth. depending on who you work for or do business with we may be part of that. simply changing the control from a rich person to others does not move meat and clean water to others. those that actually are using those things have to share. you and me.

I actually like the model of all things shared, it doesn't work for humans because of what we are.
Favorite Philosopher: Mike Tyson Location: earth
User avatar
By mystery
#394814
Belindi wrote: September 16th, 2021, 1:59 pm Mystery wrote:
but how can it be done to add instinct to ethics, that's a very interesting idea ?
It's not my idea. It has been a main theme of the Romantic tradition which elevates subjective experience.
Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.
(Wikipedia)

Philosophical materialism is a theory of existence that is antithetical to Romanticism. Idealism(immaterialism) (which has been unfashionable for much of 20th century and to date ) is needed to supplant materialism. It is obvious from many posts on this forum that materialism retains popular support.
thanks, I still don't get it. could you dumb it down a little to teach what it means?
Favorite Philosopher: Mike Tyson Location: earth
User avatar
By Leontiskos
#394822
Ecurb wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:19 am
Leontiskos wrote: September 15th, 2021, 8:01 pmIf property rights exist only by rule of law then your "principle of justice which overrides the will of the majority or the king" is not applicable to property rights. It means that whatever the legislator decides is right is right. In that case a law that says the rich must give money to the poor is no more just or unjust than a law that says the poor must give money to the rich. When it comes down to it, I doubt you would want to go the route of legal positivism with respect to property rights.
This simply doesn't follow from my suggestion that property rights exist by rule of law. Why can't some laws be just, fair, and conforming to some moral principle ("greatest good for the greatest number" or something else), and others be unjust and cruel?
Well, you said, “I think rights concerning property are more ‘legal’ than ‘moral’.” Appeals to justice are appeals to morality. It is only if you hold to some kind of morality or system which precedes the legal sphere that you would be logically permitted to say that a law is good or bad. If rights are merely legal, and not a function of pre-legal justice, then what I said follows.
Ecurb wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:19 amI also suggest that "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is reasonable from the point of view of justice, charity and kindness. If it is impractical, or inefficient, and fails to conduce human well being as a result, then (as a practical matter) we should abandon it. But there's no intinsic (i.e. intrinsic to some natural nature of property) reason to think it immoral. I'd suggest that billionaires can (and should) give half of their money for the public good, at which point they will be (for all practical purposes) equally "well-off" as they are now. If the public good is enhanced, human well-being will be conduced by such an arrangement (some people will be substantially helped, and nobody will be substantially harmed).
But if this is your approach to rights then how could you say that they are more legal than moral? You are proposing a moral principle which grounds and judges the legal sphere.
Ecurb wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:19 amHowever, devising a logical system is inevitably circular (that's the nature of logic).
Things that are objective and rationally defensible are not necessarily circular.
Ecurb wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:19 amNor is deriving morality from a "basis" of principles the only way to derive morality. We can derive morality analogically as well as logically. This is obvious to us Westerners, since Christians are called on to "emulate Christ". Are they supposed to derive principles from Jesus' life and teachings, and then use that to build a moral superstructure? I don't think so. Instead, they are asked to "become" (with God's help) Christs themselves, by channeling and intuiting "what Jesus would do". We need not be Christians to find this a reasonable (rationally defensible?) system. Perhaps we would admire different role models from history, myth or fiction and emulate them. Although (I suggest) such an ethos is "rationally defensible", it is (perhaps) not "objective". Nor is any other moral system, since they must all start somewhere. The objectivity begins only after the postulates are accepted.
But isn’t that morality derived from a principle? The principle is simply “WWJD”. Aristotle said we should do something very similar, “What would the virtuous man do?” I don’t find either of these to be non-objective. I realize there is a very strong bias on this forum against objective morality, but I haven’t seen anyone defend the bias.
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas
By Belindi
#394823
mystery wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:53 pm
Belindi wrote: September 16th, 2021, 1:59 pm Mystery wrote:
but how can it be done to add instinct to ethics, that's a very interesting idea ?
It's not my idea. It has been a main theme of the Romantic tradition which elevates subjective experience.
Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.
(Wikipedia)

Philosophical materialism is a theory of existence that is antithetical to Romanticism. Idealism(immaterialism) (which has been unfashionable for much of 20th century and to date ) is needed to supplant materialism. It is obvious from many posts on this forum that materialism retains popular support.
thanks, I still don't get it. could you dumb it down a little to teach what it means?
That is a big ask and I risk over-simplifying.

The material I copied and pasted on Romanticism is the best I can do without quite a few examples, such as the advent of the 19th century novel, political and religious initiatives, and many painters and poets.
The main motive towards Romanticism is the rise of individualism which shows up in art and politics as consideration of individual men and women, their feeling and life styles, as against traditional social classes and displays of power. Perhaps if you like pictures you could look up the Romantic tradition in art.

Monism is a theory of existence that posits only one fundamental substance , which is popularly called "the universe". The two main branches of monism are idealism and materialism. Idealism holds that what is fundamental is ideas about the universe and all that is in it(often expressed as mind), and materialism holds that what you see, hear and so forth is what is fundamental about the universe and all that is in it(often expressed as matter).
User avatar
By mystery
#394829
Belindi wrote: September 17th, 2021, 5:22 am
mystery wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:53 pm
Belindi wrote: September 16th, 2021, 1:59 pm Mystery wrote:
but how can it be done to add instinct to ethics, that's a very interesting idea ?
It's not my idea. It has been a main theme of the Romantic tradition which elevates subjective experience.
Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.
(Wikipedia)

Philosophical materialism is a theory of existence that is antithetical to Romanticism. Idealism(immaterialism) (which has been unfashionable for much of 20th century and to date ) is needed to supplant materialism. It is obvious from many posts on this forum that materialism retains popular support.
thanks, I still don't get it. could you dumb it down a little to teach what it means?
That is a big ask and I risk over-simplifying.

The material I copied and pasted on Romanticism is the best I can do without quite a few examples, such as the advent of the 19th century novel, political and religious initiatives, and many painters and poets.
The main motive towards Romanticism is the rise of individualism which shows up in art and politics as consideration of individual men and women, their feeling and life styles, as against traditional social classes and displays of power. Perhaps if you like pictures you could look up the Romantic tradition in art.

Monism is a theory of existence that posits only one fundamental substance , which is popularly called "the universe". The two main branches of monism are idealism and materialism. Idealism holds that what is fundamental is ideas about the universe and all that is in it(often expressed as mind), and materialism holds that what you see, hear and so forth is what is fundamental about the universe and all that is in it(often expressed as matter).
thank you for the pointer. I have no background formally in that/this knowledge, albeit it "feels" like something I know. I plan to read/study more on it.
Favorite Philosopher: Mike Tyson Location: earth
#394832
GE Morton wrote: September 16th, 2021, 2:12 pm No one pays for natural goods. They are all free.
This simple arithmetic lie enables our economic system to appear workable. It discards a major overhead cost by pretending it is free. Once we factor in all the costs, almost nothing we do is economically justifiable. This would undermine our global devotion to capitalism, and generally bring down the financial side of our global economy.

This is happening in practice anyway, as the environmental catastrophe brings home to us the actual real-world costs that we have been pretending are non-existent. We have been consuming our capital, to put it into financial/economic parlance. Now the capital is, in some areas, exhausted and our folly is obvious, as it should always have been if we weren't so greedy.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#394833
mystery wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:48 pm I believe I understand your argument on this. If I extend it into practice worldwide both you and I will be in the bucket considered rich. In this model you suggest...
Sorry, I didn't suggest any model, I only commented in general terms on your introduction of the concept of fairness, which is an important part of this discussion. All I said was it's very difficult to be fair to all, and so a compromise is probably the only practical way forward.
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
User avatar
By mystery
#394839
Pattern-chaser wrote: September 17th, 2021, 9:16 am
mystery wrote: September 16th, 2021, 10:48 pm I believe I understand your argument on this. If I extend it into practice worldwide both you and I will be in the bucket considered rich. In this model you suggest...
Sorry, I didn't suggest any model, I only commented in general terms on your introduction of the concept of fairness, which is an important part of this discussion. All I said was it's very difficult to be fair to all, and so a compromise is probably the only practical way forward.
Haha, you clearly suggested that it is not fair for the rich to be rich and that if we fail to interfere that the problem will continue. You specifically suggested those that who have yachts are the blame. I countered that and suggested that it is actually common people that fail to share with the less wealthy. Perhaps those like us.
Favorite Philosopher: Mike Tyson Location: earth
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 41

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II
by Dr. Joseph M. Feagan
April 2025

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)
by Maitreya Dasa
March 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science
by Lia Russ
December 2024

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

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

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 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

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


If being discourteous and hurtful is more importa[…]

A major claim of feminism is that the Western cult[…]

My concern is simply rational. People differ fro[…]

Wow! This is a well-articulated write-up with prac[…]