Twitxy Saved

The Rational Animal 🤔

Verified account This account is verified. Learn more

@theobjectivist

Champion of Reason, Individual Rights and Capitalism.
United States Joined January 2025
946 Following 15K Followers 4.2K Posts

Latest posts 5

Pinned post

The Rational Animal 🤔 Verified account @theobjectivist
I understand it too, and I'm not going to pretend the flyswatter work isn't tiring. But consider how fortunate you are.

You were born in the one century where a man can read Aristotle, Rand, and Peikoff on a device in his pocket, debate a million strangers from his kitchen table, and check any claim in seconds. Every thinker before you had to argue by candlelight to a few hundred people and hope a copy survived.

You were born in the United States, the only country founded on the idea that your life is yours. Everywhere else and every time before, a man with your convictions kept them to himself or died for them.

And you had her. Most men go their whole lives without ever hearing the principles explained in a way that makes the world make sense. You got them laid out in full, by the woman who discovered them, while she was still alive to write the footnotes. That is a stroke of luck almost nobody in history has had.

The odds are long. They were long for her. She wrote Atlas in a culture that had already decided she was wrong, and the book is still outselling its critics seventy years later. There are more of us than it looks like from inside the swarm, and some of us aren't putting the swatter down yet.
Jeffery Small Verified account @cjsmall 4d
Very well said.

In the last issue of The Ayn Rand Letter, Rand said she was stopping publication as she was finding herself repeating things she had said concerning current events. She likened he work to being a flyswatter, constantly killing one annoying pest while another identical one immediately flew by.

I'm old enough and tired enough to completely understand what she meant.
View quoted post on X
2 replies 6 reposts 54 likes 4.1K views View on X
The Rational Animal 🤔 Verified account @theobjectivist
JD Vance represents everything wrong with the Republican party. He should do everyone a favor and retire from politics altogether. He has no principles, only a reading of the polls.

In January, as Trump weighed war with Iran, Vance personally asked Rasmussen to add questions on how many American combat deaths the public would tolerate. A regime that has made war on Americans since 1979 is a matter of self-defense. Vance treated it as a matter of public opinion. He defended the war this summer, and now that Republicans have lost seven Senate seats, including his old seat in Ohio, he blames the war and says the party must change its relationship with Israel. The tariffs get none of the blame, because he champions them.

He rejects the idea the country was founded on. He told the Claremont Institute that defining America by the Declaration of Independence is over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time, and that men whose ancestors fought in the Civil War have more claim to America than those who say they don't belong. Rights belong to every man by his nature, not by his bloodline. He praised Lina Khan's war on successful companies, and his new memoir has a chapter attacking free market economics.

The Republican party does not need an heir. It needs men who will defend individual rights and capitalism on moral grounds, whether the polls agree or not. Ten years of Vance's record show he is not one of them.

wsj.com/politics/elect…
www.wsj.com Election Drubbing Complicates Vance’s Calculation on Whether to Run in 2028 Some people close to the vice president worry any Republican would struggle to win a presidential election in two years.
13 replies 16 reposts 134 likes 2.4K views View on X
The Rational Animal 🤔 Verified account @theobjectivist
Mark, you are welcome to help anyone you like. Fund any clinic. Pay the premiums. Build Cost Plus. Nobody is stopping you, and nobody will in a free country.

That is not what you are proposing. You are proposing that every working American be made to fund your idea whether they agree with it or not. Your choice of motivations is yours. It does not become a claim on anyone else's paycheck, and calling the claim help does not change what it is.

Read your own post again. Every example in it is voluntary. The entrepreneur picks his reward. The worker picks his employer. The customer picks what to buy. Those people are all traders, owner and employee alike, and each arrangement stands because both sides said yes.

But then you want a Treasury payroll deduction from everyone. A trade you cannot refuse is not a trade. It is the one thing in your entire post nobody chose.

Capitalism is not an economic policy. It is the social system in which all property is privately owned and all human relationships are voluntary, which means it is the political form of freedom itself. The only thing it bans is the initiation of force. That is why the signal are the result of voluntary choices, as you say, and also why your plan is outside it. The moment you reach for the Treasury you have left capitalism, and no amount of good intention brings you back in.

So the question is simple. Why do you believe it is right to confiscate one man's earnings against his consent to fund an idea you think is good? If the idea is good, people will invest in it voluntarily. You have raised money your whole life. You know what it means when nobody will write the check.

Capitalism and Medicare for All are not two options on the same menu. One rests on consent and the other on force, and you cannot run both on the same patient. What we have now is the remnant of a free market in medicine, and the record since 1965 is not in dispute. Medicare projected at $9 billion, running $444 billion. Premiums doubled after the law that promised to cut them. Three quarters of insurer revenue already tax money. Prices climbed in exact step with the government's share, and you want the share to be all of it.

Capitalism works for everyone who trades. What it refuses to do is give any man a right to another man's life, and that refusal is not its failure. It is the reason a free man can walk into a hospital in the first place.
Mark Cuban Verified account @mcuban 22h
Profit isn't the only signal. Feeling great about helping people. Changing people's lives. Helping your country. Putting people in a position to succeed. To enjoy their lives. People get to pick their own motivations. If they are fortunate, they will reach those goals.

That's the beauty of capitalism. People get to choose the reward that motivates them.

Entrepreneurs can choose to make as much money as possible. Or not. They can choose to make enough money to focus on using their most valuable asset, their time, to not have to work at all. They can choose to make money to help people.

But. Every entrepreneur that wants to reach their goals needs people. People to work for them, buy from them, sell to them. Even the person in the basement with nothing but AI, needs to connect to humans to reach their personal goals.

Capitalism works. But not for everyone.

Where Capitalism fails people, Capitalism isn't the problem. It's the people that put profits above all else that are the problem.

If you put your personal net worth or cash flow above all else, you may make insane amounts of money, but you will suffer the greatest indignity. You will be hated. Your time will not be your own. You will never experience the joy that comes from helping others.

No one is born knowing where their life will take them. We get to do our best, in our circumstances, to try to enjoy our lives.

Capitalism allows us to try to get there. Capitalism allows people who have achieved those goals to help others. Capitalism allows us to choose our own personal path.

Unfortunately, we don't all get there. But we get to try to choose the path we want.

The signal is personal choice. Not profit.
View quoted post on X
39 replies 182 reposts 773 likes 27K views View on X
The Rational Animal 🤔 Verified account @theobjectivist
Serious answer.

A regime is people, money, and weapons. Take all three away.

People. The supreme leader, the Assembly of Experts, the IRGC command, the Basij command, the intelligence ministry leadership. Named targets, found and killed. The last Basij chief was killed in March. The regime named a new one in August. He gets the same treatment, and so does the next one, until nobody wants the job.

Money. Kharg Island handles around 90 percent of Iran's crude exports. We already hit the military targets there in March and are blockading the rest. Finish it. The regime cannot pay the IRGC, Hezbollah, or the Houthis with oil it cannot ship.

Weapons. The nuclear sites, the missile production plants, the drone factories, the launchers, the navy. Everything that reaches past Iran's borders.

That is a few weeks of air and sea power plus a short ground component for the targets bombs cannot reach, which is what Israel asked for in March. Then you leave, after telling whoever is left that rebuilding any of the three gets the same treatment.

Nobody writes their constitution. Nobody polices their streets. The Iranian people decide what comes next, which is more than they have had since 1979.
NachoCat Verified account @NachoCat16 2d
@theobjectivist Serious question: “finish off the regime” how?
View quoted post on X
6 replies 8 reposts 64 likes 1.9K views View on X
The Rational Animal 🤔 Verified account @theobjectivist
Mark. Do you hear yourself?

You say government doesn't have to make a profit, and that is true. It is the whole problem. Profit is the signal that tells a producer he created more value than he consumed. Government has no such signal, which is why it cannot know whether anything it does is worth doing. That is not a friction AI removes. It is the absence of the one piece of information AI would need.

And everyone else in your plan does have to make a profit. The researcher who spends ten years on a molecule that may never get through the FDA. The engineer who designs the scanner. The company that risks capital on a manufacturing line. The doctor who borrowed three hundred thousand dollars for the right to work ninety hour weeks. The nurse. The hospital that has to keep the lights on. Every one of them has to take in more than they put out or they stop, and when they stop, the care stops with them. Government not needing a profit means nothing if the people who make the thing still do.

Then there are the people whose money you intend to run through the Treasury. They earned it. They need it. And they have a right to it that does not depend on whether your commission has a good use in mind. A government that doesn't have to make a profit is a government that only has to take, and the taking is the part you keep leaving out of the pitch.

You know all of this. You built Cost Plus on exactly these premises. Publish a price, earn a margin, let the customer decide. You just refuse to grant the people who make medicine the same thing you granted yourself.
Mark Cuban Verified account @mcuban 2d
There are plenty. FAA, etc. Plenty they make worse too. But AI will be a great equalizer. So much of the friction and cost that bureaucracy introduces, can be eliminated by AI.

Gov doesn’t have to make a profit. So AI used well, can allow services from all levels of gov to do some things better, for less cost than private companies.

It won’t happen tomorrow, but if government agencies can find a way to use AI to optimize for the betterment of the people in this country (I know for many the default answer is no ), and are completely transparent about how AI is used, gov could look dramatically different in a decade
View quoted post on X