Easy Truth

If there's any one thing Rand would've supported, I'm sure it's mob violence in the name of lies at the behest of an authoritarian against democracy...

So more than 50 courts the United States are like the OJ court. If they were, I would have stormed the Capitol too.
There is no Justice in the United States. We can't count on anything. I can get murdered at any time and the guy will get away with it.

Careful with this thought process. If we continue on this trajectory, there will be no country left.

Vilifying the truth teller,  Classic.

I strongly disagree.  You do have the option of running off into the wilderness and being a subsistence farmer anytime you want to.  Just because it's not the easiest or most fun option (even today) does not make it cease to exist nor entitle anybody to anything they haven't earned!  It's really weird to hear (presumably) a non-Communist getting cozy with that line of reasoning, but in case you've forgotten...
If you're claiming the right to "storm castles" simply because you feel you need to - so does any burglar!  So let's not start imagining that peacefully walking away (in any form; not just secession) isn't an option.
 
Furthermore aren't you anticipating a civil war anyway???  If so then HOW are you disregarding the subsistence farmer option?????  Are you just tired of being alive or what?????

A national mask mandate on federal property. I believe that it would be unconstitutional for him to mandate it nationally but time will tell.

Then Trump did not push the idea that there was massive fraud.
And he promoted trust in the judicial system to sort it out.
And peace reigned in the Capitol Building on January 6 2021.
And then I woke up. 

Yes and that is the key issue, THE ENTIRE SYSTEM is corrupt is what they believe. It's not just the election system, it ALL OF IT. This is what's hard to understand. When did it start? Why?
The obvious fact, just looking around us, we should be able see for the most part, we have a system that works. So there's some sort of evasion that's going on (caused by some intense blind anger).
This kind of (angry) thinking (or lack of thinking) is dangerous, I mean deadly dangerous.

Faceless? As in selfless? or Faceless like: no eyes, nose, mouth etc.
In both cases you're dead. Dead is your identity.

Yes, there are two side that are attacking individual rights.
Many Objectivists I know find fault in Rand being against Reagan. In a world where authoritarianism is considered to be necessary, it's hard to distinguish which force is worse, the Socialist or the Fascist.
One of the problems I am concerned about is the constantly shifting definitions. One day Socialist means one thing, another day it means being like Sweden. Similarly China is not considered communist one day and the next day it is. South Africa seems to have a communist constitution, yet is it communist?
In one debate a prominent leftist (in fact he moderated a debate with Yaron and another person), said he believed that Marx and the Soviet union had nothing to do with each other, as Adam Smith and the US have nothing to do with each other. Well, we can't say nothing, but they may also not be identical.
The problem is that it does not allow you to identify friend from foe when they change colors like that.
Also, in the process, certain problems get confused in the public. One example is many Bernie people want Socialism simply because it means free education. Some of us get stuck in the idea that it is Socialist so it is wrong and never consider it.
Meanwhile a free education has always been available, we've always had it. It's called a scholarship, or just go to the library. In fact the European model is more geared toward "merit based education" kind of like a scholarship. In this case free market alternatives do exits but lost in the debate because of the fear that it might give socialism good publicity. So we end up with a gridlock rather than knowing what really works best.

But do we deserve this?

The American spirit is this type of chaos? Then I guess BLM had a lot of American Spirit.
A proponent of Capitalism who supports of this type of behavior is actually a proponent of Crony Capitalism.
To justify the violence is  ultimately making another "public good" argument that socialists make.
Officially creating an environment of chaos, lawlessness, physical aggression is NOT the solution to "eliminating" socialists and socialist sympathizers. The right way is to use the free speech that already exists. Otherwise, you'll end up pushing for fascism ... fascism over socialism.

Yes, but someone got killed. Who cares about what the "experience" of the representative is. This was violence, encouraged by "our" leader. And as Trump once predicted, he will get away with it. I'll grant him that.

Aren't they both unacceptable? Lawless?

Why are you telling me this? I know this, we went over it, I explicitly told you I agree with you that all this should be voluntary.

Guessing, you meant “take preventative measures in not increasing (decreasing) risk for others.“ If that is correct, then I can apply it to driving as follows. I will heed the 45 mph speed limit and thereby not increase risk to other drivers or pedestrians rather than drive 80 mph and endanger other drivers or pedestrians.
whYNOT’s response makes no sense when applied to my driving example. That’s because "not increasing the risk" means not driving, say, 80 mph in a 45 mph zone and thereby creating liability by driving dangerously.

There are multiple cases regarding being infected by someone with HIV. Granted it is very difficult to prove in many cases, but it is not impossible and in some cases one can find a direct link. In those cases the law would apply consequences.

Influenza is not an individual.
If it was between you and the virus itself, the concept "rights" does not apply. Rights is only applicable in a social context. The only relevant question would be "does someone have a right to infect you with a disease"?  And the answer is always no.

But interacting with people in public even without symptoms increases the risk of catching the virus. In fact that is problem with this disease that allows it rapid transmission. Some other diseases like ebola have higher mortality, but have symptoms that people can identify and stay away from. 
So the statement "isn't dangerous" is false.

Similar to the question of God, what created God. What matrix created the matrix we are in, going on infinitely. Or maybe there are Gods instead of on God. So maybe there are multiple matrix's. In other words, what if this matrix is in a matrix itself, and that one in another one. What if we are in a matrix that is part of a dream? What if we are in a matrix that coexists with another one ... and on and on with the possibilities.
That is the problem with "arbitrary", it is eternally undeterminable.
Kind of like x/0, a divide by zero problem is undeterminable with infinite possibilities. Maybe it's 8, maybe its 52 because both multiplied with zero are zero. They are all possible. You don't know which number it is, but you know that you can never determine it. In fact one knows that is eternally undeterminable.
One thing I notice is that there are two interpretations of the matrix issue
1. The matrix is a simulation in this world. Meaning, you may be mistaken about your location. you are not where you think you are.
2. The matrix is a way of saying there is no reality. There is no real world. kind of like existence does not exists. It falls apart because the matrix requires existence, for itself to exist.
#1  is an empirical question, requiring experimentation and trial and error to see if there is any evidence and to "find" the actual room that you are in. It is not a refutation of existence, just an assertion of an error. In that case, it is not an attack on epistemology. 
Since you think an attack on epistemology is involved, you would be arguing the second definition of the Matrix. That maybe existence does not exist. In that case, that matrix does not exist, period!
 

I'm assuming that I misunderstand you because one has a right to NOT be infected by another person, knowingly or not. Accidentally or on purpose, the person harming you is liable, culpable, responsible, and the cause.
In this case the issue seems to be about increase of risk. The question is do we, as a democracy, have the requirement/right/obligation to abide by what democratically, most of us, have declared to be "too much of a risk". That includes "even if the majority are altruists". In other words, when should one abide or not abide the law of the land.

I'm not ignoring all your questions but I will only answer the one's that I think I have thought about adequately:
That means that if the child used his mind to infer something, you would infer that same something if you had that child's mind as in his "field of awareness", his perspective, or his capability to understand. So what he sees is valid i.e. it is from a child's perspective.
He could not be limiting it to the perceptual field especially when he is including how you organize them into concepts. That which affects your field of awareness can't be limited to perception (to what you sense/perceive) it has to include concepts/previous conclusions and perhaps other things that I may not have mentioned.
The lense, his eyesight (capability to see), and his assumptions are some of those things. These affect what he sees. The lense is obvious, bad eyesight as in color blindness would cause him to see what he sees, and his assumptions can skew his view or conclusion about what he is seeing. (his political leanings may influence it too LOL) These examples are not "definitions" that he holds, but they do affect the understanding/identification of what is perceived.
Because my definition of perspective is broader that "spacial, or visual perspective", yes it is the same thing. But if your definition of perspective is limited to "where you are in relations to the object" then no, context is far more broad.

It's more unfortunate that Rand wasn't a very moral person when it came to relationships. In many ways, Rand repeatedly failed her own ethical standards. The vision of Ayn Rand, setback for decades by Ayn Rand. With books like this, at least being easily accessible - whatever damage she caused, whether or not the responses were rational - things start to be put together again.
I finally started reading this book, it's pretty good. So far it's more review to me than anything. It's a good example though of the value in something that Branden did that deserves more attention. In fact, there is mention in the book that Rand didn't think presenting her philosophy to the country at large would be worth the time. She didn't think anyone would listen. It was thanks to Branden and his lectures that helped her see that people actually were interested.

I will get into my answer later for intrinsicist, but as a matter of clarification.
Rand would probably claim that all that exists metaphysically speaking (apart from your consciousness)  is 1. The only universals that exist are 3, with the emphasis that they only exist in the mind. 2 would not be anything valid that exists (there are no universals outside of the mind). Objective thinking (rational thinking) is the way we connect 1 and 3 in a valid way. Connecting 1 with 3 would not require some intermediary existent like 2. 
 

Indeed, he is totally owned by the Communist Party that has tormented billions of people for generations.
Trump swore an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so he can not and will not allow Biden to assume the Presidency. The Biden Crime Family and the rest of the filthy Washington swamp will be dealt with appropriately in Trump's glorious second term, all backed up by the newly-legitimate Supreme Court.