MisterSwig

So that's a big NO to my question. Hitler was elected in 1933. The Kristallnacht was in 1938. My point: you have no clue when to forcefully oppose an elected leader.

Ah, something we can agree on. I also think it's a bad idea to take Trump's word about election fraud. Fraud is not the basis for my beef with the election, which is why you don't see me participating in that debate. But if you ever want to discuss voter requirements or mail-in ballots, that's my focus.
You picked two subjects of which I have very little interest. I certainly don't take Trump's word about them. I have an extremely rosy image of Rand, and I don't take her word at face value either.

I'm confident many could articulate a better political ideal than the Founders, whose flawed "ideal" led to civil war.

Well, you've got me there.  And I guess I can't think of any other reasons why the Senators didn't deserve what they got on the Sixth.  I'm not sure I've ever sat down and contemplated the just how pathetic most of them are before this.  I still don't think it was a good idea, even if its intended victims would've deserved it.  But I guess they did deserve it.

Sorry, I'm going to bail on the "walk away" conversation. I'm not interested in walking away from the fight.
Okay. I'll check it out. It doesn't take much to convince me to watch sci-fi.

Congrats on successfully learning how to do it!
 
I started lucid dreaming when I was a teenager.  As a child I used to have really awful night terrors about random things (I think one of the recurring ones involved "growling owls" I'd seen in some kid's movie) and although they became more infrequent, they never really stopped or became any less terrible as I got older.  But at some point when I was a teenager I realized in the middle of a nightmare that it was, in fact, just a nightmare.
It's funny; I can remember that dream but not what grade I was in at the time.  I was being chased around the house by this large feline-ish creature that was very intelligent and very hungry, and at one point it jumped into a wall and the wall didn't respond like wood would; it only rippled as the monster jumped through it.  That was when I realized I was dreaming.  I didn't immediately see all the implications (that I could've just decided to be on a beach in Tahiti or something instead) but I did realize I could turn around and punch the monster's stupid face.
I've never really figured out how to do it at will or anything, but throughout my adult life most of my nightmares have ended with me figuring out what's going on, deciding that whatever horrible thing it is should be ended in some suitably-amusing way and whisking myself away to Tahiti (or, most recently, to become the Supreme Overlord of Canada).

Just the one when it's required to enter a store or something.
 
 

I wish this were hyperbole,
but ev'ry word is most assured.
The drooling beast has been released.
It circles 'round our hallowed ground,
awaiting weak and fearful fools.
They bleat and squeal before they kneel,
before the beast begins to feast.

You have to take in the magnitude of this. You or I are not allowed to reasonably discuss the definition of insurrection - etc.. There is no amicable, "let's agree to differ". It will either be their way or the highway. If I say "riot" I am branded indelibly with being a Trump- dictator-Hitler supporter. That can mean social ostracization and losing employment or clients and being de-banked and things we haven't imagined yet; they understand this much: one's words reveal one's mind and it is "your minds they want". Think of tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, and you won't go far wrong. These are morally-superior, vengeful little people who have grasped the power and justify punishing the unfaithful 'for the collective good'. It's been a few weeks and the 'crats, big Tech, celebs, TV anchormen, college profs, have already, without shame or fear of contradiction, exhibited their aims. Give them time. The drooling beast has been released.

Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman, trespassed on what people who go in for hypocrisy call “the sacred temple of democracy” (Wesley Widmaier).   For this misdemeanor she got what she deserved, shot through the neck and killed.  It was just and right.

Stale by now, one'd think. Anything or anyone slightly right-wards (or 'centrist') of leftism is Fascism or Fascist.
How socialists have used this ploy to great effect! For only about a century.
 

This time we weigh in with regard to the Snowden question. Should he be pardoned? We think so. His crime was a benefit to Americans rather than a detriment, and the traditional whistleblower route was not a viable option.
 

Ayn Rand’s novella ANTHEM, published in 1938 and revised in a 1946 edition, is set in a fictitious collectivist community, one smaller and simpler than Kira’s historical setting in WE THE LIVING. Rand’s ANTHEM is presented as a journal kept by her protagonist whose name is Equality 7-2521. He records that he dares to choose, in the secrecy of his own mind, work he hopes to do when leaving the Home of the Students. He loves the Science of Things. He hopes he will be selected to be a scholar, but the authorities appoint him to be a street sweeper.
The technology of his isolated community is very primitive in comparison to an earlier lost civilization (ours). His people have candles, but not electricity. He discovers a subway tunnel from the ancient civilization, and he begins to experiment with electricity in secret at night. In his own community, each refers to himself as “we”. Of his secret work at night, he thinks: “We alone, of the thousands who walk this earth, we alone in this hour are doing a work which has no purpose save that we wish to do it” (1946, 23). In his love of the science of things, he is similar to Kira, and to Howard Roark and to John Galt, the principal protagonists of Rand’s later fiction. He is similar to Kira also in her “wanting to learn a work I like only because I like it,” and he is similar to her in standing against society made collectivist.
Comes a moment to Equality 7-2521: “This moment is a sacrament which calls us and dedicates our body to the service of some unknown duty we shall know. Old laws are dead. Old tablets have been broken [by me]. A clean, unwritten slate is now lying before our hands [my hands]. Our fingers are to write” (1938, 125–26). The talk of breaking old tablets is an echo of Nietzsche’s  “On Old and New Tablets” (Z III). However, the moral principles Equality 7-2521 would replace are the ones he had known in his one and only society, not the ones of wider world and history. He is not on the brink of writing principles entirely different from ones known in the ancient times, the times of the reader. His task of moral philosophy is not the task of the God of Moses nor the task of radical and continual transvaluation and self-overcoming that Zarathustra gives to human creators.
Rand wrote ANTHEM (1938) in the summer of 1937. In her manuscript for ANTHEM, she continually tries to suit ideas of Nietzsche to her story, then scratches them out (Milgram 2005; Mayhew 2005). Naturally, I wonder if she was not also, in some of those same strokes of the pen, writing down ideas of Nietzsche that she had seen attractive as truth, or at least promising as truth, then rejecting them as inadequate to her own grasp of the truth. Writing one’s ideas down and reading them helps one think better.
Near the end of the fable ANTHEM, our true searcher Equality 7-2521 announces:
“And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men have come into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
“This god, this one word: ‘I’.” (1946, 90)
In his community of origin, Equality 7-2521 had wanted to know the meaning of things, the meaning of existence. He had wanted to know the secrets of nature, and he had come to suspect there is some important secret of human existence unknown to all. After fleeing his collectivist society, he becomes alone the live-long day. He comes upon an uninhabited fine house and learns from its books many wonders of the advanced science of the ancient civilization. He discovers the word “I”. That is, he discovers that word and attains the concept “I” distinctly and firmly set.
He no longer writes “we” or “we alone” or “we alone only” in his journal to refer to himself. A new chapter begins. He writes: “I am. I think. I will” (1946, 86).
With this fundamental discovery, Equality 7-2521 has become a Prometheus, whose name he takes for his own. He continues:
“What must I say besides? These are the words. This is the answer.
“I stand here on the summit of the mountain. I lift my head and I spread my arms. This, my body and spirit, this is the end of the quest. I wished to know the meaning of things. I am the meaning.” (1946, 86)
There is one word “which can never die on this earth, for it is the heart of it and the meaning and the glory. / The sacred word: EGO” (1946, 98).
That last quotation is the close of the story. At the time this story was written (1937), there were no atomic weapons, no nuclear arsenals, and I think it was an ordinary assumption among people not Christian that human kind would continue effectively forever on the earth. Consider too that ANTHEM is a poetic work, and in poetic expression, as in dreams, conjured images condense multiple associations. In the case of poetic expression, the suggested associations are set up by the wider text. To write that the word “ego” and that which it names cannot be eradicated from the earth might be playing on multiple meanings of “earth”. One meaning is the third planet from the sun; another is the dwelling place of mortal men, as distinct from mythological realms of immortal beings; another is the collection of human inhabitants on the planet. Rand’s uses of “earth” with talk of ego in ANTHEM can rightly carry those three meanings simultaneously. I think the most salient of these meanings in Rand’s use here is the second one. She is not only making a statement about the endurance of ego among all possible societies (the third meaning). She is most saliently making a statement about ego in relation to all the earth, to all the abode of human existence.
At the core of ANTHEM, her manifesto of individualism, Rand sets a foundational sequence of thoughts: “I am. I think. I will.” Although Rand lists “will” as third in her 1938 foundational sequence, third in sequence of philosophical reflection; she awards “I will” some preeminence over “I am,” which she characterizes as self of truth, and over “I think,” which she characterizes as protector of self (1938, 128–29). Of words, “only three are holy: ‘I will it’” (129). Further:
“Where I go, there does my will go before me. My will, which chooses, and orders, and creates. My will, the master which knows no masters. . . . My will, which is the thin flame, still and holy, in the shrine of my body, my body which is but the shrine of my will.” (129)
This opposes 1 Corinthians 6:19–20, which would have the body of a righteous individual be temple of the Holy Spirit and would deny self-ownership of one’s body, which has been bought by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Prometheus’ line “Where I go, there does my will go before me” says I go only where I will, but expresses it in echo and in substitution of various King James biblical passages saying God is with one and goes before one to subvert threats or create lights in one’s path. Moses says to Joshua: “And the Lord, he IT IS that doth go before thee; he will be with thee, he will not fail thee, neither forsake thee” (Deut. 31:8). Additional parallels (anti-parallels) between ANTHEM and the Bible are observed in Simental 2013, 100–105.
I do not think that the preeminence of “will” in Rand 1938 is a tuning to Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. It looks to be, rather, a bannering of liberty.
In her 1946 edit of ANTHEM, Rand posed ego as stay of the earth not because ego is earth’s heart, spirit, and glory, but because ego is the earth’s heart, meaning, and glory. In ATLAS SHRUGGED, Rand would leave off all talk of man or ego as stay, heart, or meaning of the earth. But in her 1946 rendition of ANTHEM, “meaning” opens a new possible interpretation of its closing line. Without a meaning maker, there is not meaning in the world. It is similar to the situation with truth and fact. Without holders of truth, there is fact in the world, but truth is absent. This is actually more than a parallel. Meaning could be taken as a blend of truth and value. With no holders of truth or value in the world, meaning is absent from the world. With no truth, value, or meaning in the world, the world as human abode does not exist.
That angle suggests an enhancement to the sense of “earth” as the human abode in the original proclamation. Ego brings heart and spirit to the character of the human abode. Ego brings spirit-life. Ego brings into the world what preciousness, what value, there is in the world. Without spirit-life that comes with human being, the world as human abode does not exist.
Earth in the sense of the dwelling place of mortal man is not the only sense of “earth” suggested in Rand’s statement that “ego” is “the word which can never die on this earth, for it is the heart of it and the spirit [or meaning] and the glory.” Rand drew a picture in ANTHEM, and again in FOUNTAINHEAD, in which individual human being in his or her desiring, thinking, willing self is the final end of the earth in all its components, in all its minerals, seas, and forms of life. This teleological order of things is not portrayed as being there with the earth devoid of man, but as there with man upon the earth, making it his own. Beyond that, the further suggestion that the earth in the plain full sense depends on human ego is a discomfiting line of thought and one to be deflected. That problematic further suggestion in the closing line of ANTHEM points to an inadequacy of Rand’s philosophical foundation put forth in that work. However adequate for the internal context of that fiction, that foundation is inadequate to full philosophy for human life in the actual world, ours today, fully real. “I am” is not necessary to all fact even though it is necessary to all truth. A foundational philosophy aiming to uphold realism and objectivity must take its most basic truths from most basic facts, and “I am” does not fit that bill. “Existence exists,” Rand’s axiom for her mature philosophy (1957), is the better base and necessity.
Early Rand and her Kira stood solidly for objectivity, which is attacked in the Red student speech. Rand’s protagonist in ANTHEM is given these lines: “All things come to my judgment, and I weigh all things, and I seal upon them my ‘Yes’ or my ‘No’. Thus is truth born. Such is the root of all Truth and the leaf, such is the fount of all Truth and the ocean, such is the base of all Truth and the summit. I am the beginning of all Truth. I am its end.” (1938, 128)
This sounds subjectivist, like the ancient God-sayings it echoes and would replace. It might seem that Rand was climbing down, between 1936 and 1938, into the Nietzschean cavern of subjectivity or at least was stepping down into the Kantian ravine. I think, rather, she is only affirming in this passage that all judgment of truth is individual and that all truth we render from the world is for our own final value. Those lines in ANTHEM (in 1938; excised in ’46) are preceded by these: “It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world.” Something is seen, and with the subject, it is rendered beautiful. Something is heard, and with the subject, it is rendered song of existence. Something is given, and with its recognition, it is rendered truth.
Rand does not create a superhuman for the meaning of the earth. Does her Prometheus create a meaning of the earth? His namesake does not invent fire.
Rand’s protagonist unlocks a type of human that finds the meaning of human existence; not in super-terrestrial personages and their affairs, but in complete human individuals on earth. “I am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before!” (1946, 87).
ANTHEM does not teach humans to create (or to beget) the meaning of the earth, but to discover it. “This spread of naked rock and peaks and moonlight is like a world ready to be born, a world that waits. It seems to us it asks a sign from us, a spark, a first commandment. We cannot know what word we are to give . . . . We are to speak. We are to give its goal, its highest meaning to all this glowing space of rock and sky” (1946, 84). I really do not see Rand setting up some sort of Fichtean or Nietzschean perspective on the relation of ego and world. She is saying that whatever goals there are in inanimate and animate earth, they reach their final end in their crowning glory: the individual human knower of joy and living; the individual judge of truth; the individual will free over his or her ends; in a word “ego”. Notice that at this stage of Rand’s development only sentient living processes, specifically, human ones, can be ends not for the sake of something else. And these final ends are human, not superhuman.
In actual development, we begin to use the personal pronouns “I, me” at age two. Knowing one’s proper name and knowing how to use first-person pronouns does not yet include realization of the deep fact “I am an I” or “I am me” or, as Dolf Kohnstamm 2007 puts it, “I am I”. At age two one can construct scenarios with dolls or other figures representing individual persons. One can make up dialogues, not only participate in them. The ability to converse with oneself as if between two characters is a plausible step necessary for coming to the insight “I am I”, where the first “I” is self as patient, actor, and controller, and the second “I” is self as in contrast to any other self (Kohnstamm 2007, 164, 174). Thinking “I am I” importantly includes thinking the identity of those two characters. Rand’s Prometheus accomplishes the same recognition as part of the thought expressed by his newly found word “I” whose meaning is explicated as his unique and uniquely possessed body, shrine of his unique spirit, and explicated by his triplet “I am, I think, I will.”
It will be recalled that Equality 7-2521 had been seeking some word and concept that had been excised from his society. People there are missing the personal pronouns “I” and “me” and the possessives “my” and “mine.” Each refers to himself or herself by proper name or as “we” and refers to another individual by proper name or as “they” (or as ”you” taken as plural).
The discovery of “I” by Equality 7-2521 is an episode of exhilarating liberation and profound fulfillment, though also overwhelming sorrow for mankind in its state of not knowing “I”. Given the spontaneous, untutored character of the “I am I” episodes in real persons displayed in Kohnstamm’s book, one might wonder whether the absence of the pronoun “I” in the fictional society that was Equality 7-2521’s cradle is really possible. Probably not, though it is a neat ploy to Rand’s purpose of showing the importance, the preciousness of man the individual, as against the collective. For thoughts of Kohnstamm on “I am I” in a couple of actual collectivist societies, see his pages 175–80.
Equality 7-2521’s native society is without mirrors. Were we to bring one into their village, they would soon comprehend themselves in it, just as Equality 7-2521 does later in the story, seeing his face in water, and just as each of us did before age two. Earliest comprehension of mirrors and one’s body in them does not entail the comprehension “I am I” (Kohnstamm 2007, chap. 4). Similarly it is in the journey of Equality 7-2521. He has not yet roundly and profoundly grasped “I” and “I am I” when first seeing his reflected face.
Equality and his fellows had been trained to deflect awareness from the self and direct attention to the group by saying “we” where we should say “I”. Forbidding the word “I” with its meaning attained in the understanding “I am I” would be idle without currents of the forbidden within subjects under the law. Such currents are on show to the reader in the person of Equality 7-2521. I suggest, however, actually, “we” in the indoctrinated sense of a joint singular life and will and thought of the collective can only have meaning to one who has gotten “I am I.” The author of the fictional adventure knew the reader would come equipped with that grasp.
 
References
Kohnstamm, D. 2007. I AM I - SUDDEN FLASHES OF SELF-AWARENESS IN CHILDHOOD. Athena.
Mayhew, R. 2005. ANTHEM: ’38 & ’46. In Mayhew, ed., 2005.
Mayhew, R., editor, 2005. ESSAYS ON AYN RAND’S Anthem. Lexington.
Milgram, S. 2005. ANTHEM in Manuscript: Finding the Words. In Mayhew, ed., 2005.
Rand, A. 1938. ANTHEM. Cassell.
——. 1946. ANTHEM. Pamphleteers.
Simental, M.J. 2013. The Gospel According to Ayn Rand. THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES 13(2):96-106.

In this photo are the lights in Colorado Springs and Pueblo and in the mountains---a bit of our human world lost in the world inherited by Rand's Equality 7-2521. One very beautiful aspect of Rand's story I did not touch on was the love story developed all along the way. There is also a very important philosophical point in this work---a viewpoint carried forward into Rand's mature philosophy---I did not mention. I think that particular stance of hers a profound mistake. I'll try to return to this thread and address that error after the fundamental paper for my own Rand-related philosophy has been published this summer, which framework includes the fix of this error.

You could be a sort of deist of the simulated world. You would believe that if the world's simulated, then the Programmer created it but leaves it alone, so no changes to the simulated laws of nature. He doesn't interfere with anything.
Once you accept the arbitrary, you might as well make the most of it. The Programmer also has a backup generator in case the power goes off and he has to keep the computers running.

MS & SL, I like the idea of space as a potential for occupancy. Potentials of nature are real things in my book and so are potential things that might be invented and gotten a patent on. Potential are distinct from mere possibilities in my usage. Possibilities are things in the mind that is engaged in thinking. Potentials are already out there as it were, and together with actualities, they compose existence. Potentials, hence space of the world is real. Space, even unoccupied space, is real, is an existent.
However, potential for material or field occupancy is not the only potential that space is. There is a line in space right now that will become coincident with, a week from right now, the spin axis of the earth, and the spin axis of the earth would be the spin axis of the earth (a line in space) even if there were an empty cavity all the way through the earth along its axis of spin.
MS, one reason I speak of physical space is to allude to the distinction of (i) geometries that are only abstract from (ii) the abstract geometries that are instantiated in particular situations in the physical world. In the last two centuries geometries came to be discovered (by the methods of mathematics) that are valid geometries, but so far as we know, they have no physical instantiations, no applications. Some of the new geometries are ones for which we have found physical application. These can be 3D like Euclidean geometry, but be a geometry in which, for example, triangles sum to more than 2R or to less than 2R, among other differences they have with Euclidean geometry. They are hard to visualize except by looking at how their 2D surfaces look when embedded in 3D Euclidean geometry. The reason we were able to discover these geometries in mathematics is because Descartes and Pascal figured out the beginnings of how we can represent curves on surfaces or in space by algebraic equations (analytic geometry). Such algebraic representation can be made of the visualizable geometry that we learn in high school in Euclid's Elements. That is, analytic geometry can represent synthetic geometry (the sorts of proof we do in high school geometry class and that the Greeks did are the methods directly dealing with synthetic geometry), and indeed through manipulating equations of curves, new discoveries of relationships in Euclidean synthetic geometry were made. There are synthetic geometric relationships that can be found for Non-Eulidean geometries via analytic representations of those geometries that cannot be visualized (in 3D or higher), yet have been found to have physical application. (Now I don't want to leave the natural impression that we can make up any sort of geometry we like as a new abstract geometry. Mathematics has its criteria for what constitutes a geometry, even a merely abstract one that, for all we know, may not have any physical instantiation anywhere. Just now, one of the books I'm studying pertains to those mathematical constraints; it's title is Geometric Possibility.)

When your 12" cube is empty, none of the particles of reality which exist have attributes i.e. coordinates in space, which coincide with the innermost space of the 12" cube.
This does not, of course, in any way contradict with the fact that in times previous, many particles possessed such physical coordinates. Nor does it contradict the fact that presently, when empty, particles, systems, and energy outside possess the potential to cause, over time, some particles to again possess coordinates coinciding with the interior of the 12".
Stating that the cube is empty, in fact means, of those things which exist, none possess the attributes of position coinciding with inside the cube.  Stating that the cube is empty does not mean it is full of some kind of "nothing".  It is NOT full of anything, nor does it need be.
 
In any case, the absence of particles possessing coordinates inside the empty box, has no causative effect, does not constitute an imperative nor a logical necessity, making the "walls" of the empty cube possess the same spatial coordinates (definition of "in contact"). 
In fact, many physical tests could be performed to verify this.  Particles with definite momentum would take definite finite time to traverse from one wall to the other.  A particles at one wall and at another wall will feel different forces from a third particle.  If the first two were "in contact" they would feel the same forces from the third particle.
 
Coordinates specify relationships verifiable in terms of interaction and causation.  The mere fact that no particle has coordinates to cause an interaction that would otherwise be felt from the center of your cube (say a gravitational or electromagnetic pull), in other words no operative element of reality is at those coordinates (i.e. no interaction is felt from the center because no thing is there) does not in any way necessitate any conclusion about the absence.  I.e. there is no positive consequence of absence, only the absence of an otherwise expected positive consequence.
 
That which exists is the positive, all the possibilities are the background, not all of the possibilities are always occupied by that which exists.  This is the same for frequency, momentum, and position.
 
 

You're discussing a section of space. It is not nothing as in a zero. It is nothing as in unoccupied by a material thing. Defining it positively is a real challenge, because it is unlike every thing that exists. It's just space. It's where everything is.

No. Leibniz was too much of a theist and idealist for my taste.

I think space is real, but not a thing, as in an object or body. It's what most people mean when they refer to nothing rather than a mere absence of something. You could look at the space between two trees and say there is nothing there, because you don't see a thing in that space. Then science can reveal that gas molecules are in that space, and with tools we can still see a space between the molecules. We can break the molecules into smaller pieces with space between them, but what of the space?
As for whether space is physical, I don't see how it can be. But I'm curious about your idea of "physical." You say space has a structure. Is this a physical structure of some sort? Does that mean it's composed of particles or energy puffs or something else? If so, do these space things have space between them?

When I wrote A Metaphysics for Freedom #1 on Nov. 2, I didn’t include much from pages 9-12 in order to emphasize her argument for free will rather than her argument against determinism.  This morning I added an addenda to #1 that will hopefully satisfy MisterSwig for the present.

Here are just two shelves of mine.
 
I have all the extra paperback Atlases and Anthems and Capitalisms and Virtues because there are still some used bookstores in Denver and I pick up every copy I find and I place them into the free libraries that are spotted all over Denver in front yards.
I have read and loved Ayn Rand and promoted her ideas since I was fourteen years old.

Annual amount of electrical energy produced by countries of the world is here.
Leading source for generation of electric power for each US state, 2001 v 2019. Information used by NYT (10/28/20) in making these maps is from the US Energy Information Agency.

Why “feel tainted” (to quote Ninth Doctor) voting for Trump in order to defeat Biden?  Or, if you live in a blue (for sure Democrat) state, in order to make Biden’s victory as narrow as possible?
If a thug holds a gun to your head you wouldn’t feel tainted by lying, tricking, doing anything to get away.  The “system” is holding Biden to your head and the system is threatening to blow your brains out.
Whatever color your state you should feel tainted voting for Biden.
Rudy Giuliani on the Biden Crime Family
 
 

•  Trump has the right enemies. For example the Deep State – he is so repellent it’s existence has become widely known through its brazen attacks.
•  He saw the political expediency of bringing up the immigration issue in public.
•  He pointed out the bias in the news – “fake news.”  (Rand would have liked this one.)
•  He ended an Obama regulation that forced low-income housing onto suburbs.
•  He appointed Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch (founded by Larry Klayman), to a court oversight commission that can remove judges for misconduct.
•  He appointed three – count ’em, three – not-so-bad Supreme Court justices.  Can you imagine if Hillary ... but I don’t want to have nightmares.
•  His first Attorney General prosecuted elite child slavery rings. (I haven’t read anything about the current one, William Barr.)
hagmannreport.com/president-trump-zeros-in-on-elite-pedophiles
lizcrokin.com/uncategorized/trump-takes-two-dozen-elite-pedophiles-including-celebrities-politicians
•  He’s at least trying to prosecute those behind the Russiagate hoax (William Barr is dragging it out).
•  He withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord.
•  He banned the indoctrination of federal government employees and contractors with critical race theory.
One could easily think of more but isn’t that enough?
 

This is not a right. When you live in a society, you assume the natural risks inherent in that social condition. Other people must also live their lives, which means possibly infecting others with communicable diseases. You might have a case if they purposefully infect you, showing a malicious intent. But, otherwise, being exposed to disease is part of the struggle with nature.
In a pandemic, though, the risk might be so extreme that it constitutes a national emergency to the proper functioning of society itself. In emergencies it's not always clear how best to get out of them. Extreme measures, including restrictions on freedoms, are sometimes necessary, when simply interacting with others might increase the problem.
I don't blame Trump for failing to protect people from the Wu. It's like blaming him for failing to protect people from hurricanes and earthquakes. There was only so much Trump could do under our system of government. Mostly it's the state and local leaders' responsibility to deal with diseases spreading in their regions.