Yes

Agreed- America deserves better than to be a nation defined by anarchy and violence.

Apparently you didn't watch his incendiary speech to the protesters yesterday morning. So I strongly disagree with your statement, which has absolutely no basis of fact.

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol. This in the name of Freedom? Are these hooligans striving to look for their Fuhrer? As a footnote, something like this happened in fiction- in Atlas Shrugged.

Your response is interesting, to say the least. But I do not agree that joining the military is, in itself, highly immoral. What would be immoral, if not illicit, is a country's use of the military to initiate force and violence against another country. Our military is supposed to be prepared to defend our nation against the initiation of force and violence against us. In that regard, just joining the military is, in fact an honorable move in that the military person then trains to defend against enemies. Also, the personnel in our armed forces are not "volunteers" in the sense that they

I don't argue with the above. But, if one is sick, one should have the common sense to stay home until well. If one sick person goes to work, knowing that one is sick, then that amounts to deliberately exposing others to illness. In a civil society, one doesn't have the right to initiate pain or grief upon others. That being said, in my opinion, just send the sick person home- "punishment" (as I read in another post) is inappropriate.

The assumption being made here is that humans have no control over nature when it comes to one's right to live a healthy life. And yes- one has a right to live a healthy life, free of infections. Science has spent innumerable resources in developing those items which enable one to live out life in a healthy manner, whether by vaccines, treatments, drugs, or simple wellness measures. I disagree there is an "assumption of natural risks" as the awareness of natural risks comes with knowledge. One's right to live a life of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" must include wellness.

I'm with Yaron Brook. All things considered, Trump's abject failure as a president to even accomplish what little is good about his agenda, plus his pitiful response to Covid-19, in which his government failed to protect the rights of Americans against being infected by others, and add to that his disrespect for voting rights and the woman's right to an abortion, and that leaves only the choice that Yaron Brook advocates.

There is no way that Trump can identify with objectivism, reason, or even capitalism. His insistence upon levying tariffs on China and Mexico has not in any way helped the American economy. His "tax reform" is a joke- who has really experienced tax saving from this sham except the extremely rich (who know how to deal with the tax system anyhow)? His awful response to the pandemic will most certainly doom his chances for a second term. So how should have he responded to the oncoming pandemic? He should have mobilized the pandemic response team.....oh, wait, he disbanded this? Isn't the Pre

The collectivism brush?

Lockdowns are a terrible thing, in my opinion- is it that the"cure" is worse than the symptom? But it's inexcusable to display swastikas, and weapons which allow protesters to threaten gun violence. And it's puzzling that these protesters are openly displaying placards supporting the very President who is misleading us through these trying times with misstatements, lies, and the government's bad response to this pandemic.

OK, I understand the frustration with these folks. But why the swastikas, the white supremacist chants, and- yes- the weapons? https://www.yahoo.com/news/swastikas-nooses-governor-slams-racism-234906995.html

OK, so maybe I'm being a "Monday morning quarterback", but having a team of pandemic response scientists on the ready to harness, then develop strategies to deal with a virus might have caused governments not to have to take drastic action in a vain attempt (my opinion) to "protect" vulnerable elders, those with compromised health issues, etc., into quarantine.

So much for Agent Orange's campaign promise for 'less government." In my opinion, this clearly amounts to "more government, more regulation." And since when does America have a say regarding money that does NOT come directly from the US?

If he stands for "individual freedom" why is he against women's right to an abortion? Why his opposition to mail-in voting?