Doug Morris

Are you saying we should make most of D.C. part of Maryland again?

Not in a physically aggressive way. It would be physical aggression to attack a person's brain with electrodes, drugs, scalpels, or germs without their informed, competent consent. In cases where consent cannot be obtained, such as medical treatment for a person rendered unconscious by a brain injury, it becomes necessary to take into account such things as the intent of the person acting and the interests of the subject. Presenting input to a person's senses to be processed normally by their senses and their consciousness is not made physical aggression because it has a physi

For the purpose of the issue we're discussing here, the key difference is that spreading germs is physical aggression and spreading ideas is definitely not. It is also true that spreading ideas is badly needed and spreading germs is better avoided.

Are you saying that talking about spreading germs represents shallow thinking and/or sinking to a low level? If not, what are you saying?

Both candidates were seriously flawed, making it a hard choice. My view was that neither one was acceptable to vote for, so I voted for Jorgensen. The country is complicated and varied, and the reasons for Trump's defeat were complicated and varied. His flaws certainly played a role. There are not enough Objectivists yet to have much effect on an election. If there were, we might have gotten better candidates from both parties, or a clearer choice. We'll see how Biden's presldency turns out. We'll never know whether Trump's reelection would have been better or worse.

Losing both Georgia seats, and thus tipping the balance, was very much his doing.

There is a very big difference between spreading ideas and spreading germs. But most people don't understand the difference well enough. That's not the point. The point is whether not wearing a mask endangers others enough to rise to the level of physical aggression.

Trump's businesses and family have gained significant financial benefit from his presidency. Trump placed a lot of emphasis on personal loyalty to him. Trump blew a chance to save at least one Senate seat, and thus control of the Senate, for the Republicans. He was more interested in repeating and pushing his claim that he really won his election. The accusations against Trump are not arbitrary.

If Trump had said "I want to make sure this election was fair", that would be much more reasonable and much less destructive than saying that the election was stolen. I'm not interested in rehashing that whole other thread, so I'll just repeat my key point. Subjecting other people to physical danger, including danger of disease, can rise to the level of physical aggression.

Why were they so willing to accept his attack on masks and his groundless claims of a stolen election?

They need to show more independence when it comes to believing what he says.

Anybody's Nannyism is bad. Analogous to a kid being raised by parents who may disagree on some things, but who both embrace the altruist morality. The kid won't understand at first that they are wrong, and may well never understand it.

Reminds me of Trumpism. Trump's base believed everything he said, even if there was no evidence for it ("The election was stolen!") and even if it went against science ("Don't wear masks!").

Does anyone know about the politics and economics of the Blue Estate development planned for the Caribbean?

True and very important point. Another point to be considered by anyone who thinks it's time for armed revolution: If our current government is overthrown by force, under current philosophical and political conditions, what will replace it? I haven't read or watched The Handmaid's Tale, but based on descriptions I've seen of it, it seemed far fetched to me. Now I'm not so sure. (I should add that it is OK to have a far fetched premise in a work of fiction.)