The Rational Animal 🤔

When you accept that this world is real and final - that existence here is not a waiting room for eternity - you grasp that your life is not a trial run. It is the performance. There are no second chances, no cosmic do-overs, no redemption in another realm. This is it. And that recognition is not despair. It is liberation. You realize that living well is not optional - it is urgent. Happiness is not a reward postponed to heaven; it is the purpose and reward of existence now. You must pursue it, earn it, achieve it - here, in reality, with the time you have. You discover that reality has a nature, that man has a nature, and that successful living requires understanding both. Morality is not commandments handed down from a supernatural dictator. It is the science of human survival and flourishing - objective principles derived from the facts of existence. You follow them not from fear of punishment but because they work. And death? You do not face it trembling before an imaginary judge, tallying your failures against arbitrary dogmas. You face it as the natural end of a life you owned, directed, and lived on your own terms. The religious man lives in fear of an afterlife. The rational man lives in reverence for this one.

Right! It amounts to this: Hey my house is on fire. No problem. I will just head down to Allstate and get a policy to cover it. Everyone would think this was ridiculous, but this is exactly what the pre-existing condition rule is and is one of the main reasons why it is has become unaffordable for so many.

@theobjectivist I never understood the pre-existing conditions thing. You can't buy car insurance after you crash your car. The real problem is healthcare services aren't affordable. Mandating insurance isn't a solution.

The day the Affordable Care Act passed was one of the worst days of my life. Not because I lacked compassion for the uninsured, but because I watched a nation founded on individual rights applaud as its government seized control of the most intimate decisions a human being can make about his own body and his own life. Thanks to his so called Affordable Care Act I now pay approximately $29,000/year for myself and my wife's yearly insurance premiums. Obama calls it his "proudest moment." Of course he does. Every collectivist in history has been proudest on the day he fastened the chains. The ACA did not give anyone "access to healthcare." It forced every American to purchase a product under penalty of law, compelled doctors to practice under government dictation, and conscripted the productive to finance the consumption of others. That is not compassion. It is naked compulsion. "Pre-existing conditions" became the moral shield behind which the entire edifice was built. No one dared question it because no one dared say what Rand would have said: you do not have a right to the labor of another human being. Not to his mind. Not to his skill. Not to his time. No matter how sick you are. Need is not a claim. Suffering is not a mortgage on the lives of those who can help. This was not progress. It was surrender.

Two con artists on the same page - what a surprise. Krassenstein, you ran Ponzi scheme websites until the feds raided your house and seized $450,000. Now you're a professional reply guy who gets paid per engagement. You don't have principles - you have revenue streams. Newsom destroyed California with policies that drove out productive businesses and turned cities into homeless encampments, then blamed everyone but himself. Now he's positioning for a presidential run by taking "bold stances" that poll well with his base. You support this because attacking Israel and praising Newsom generates engagement from your audience. If tomorrow the algorithm rewarded pro-Netanyahu content, you'd pivot instantly - just like you pivoted from loving Elon Musk in private to attacking him publicly when that became more profitable. Neither of you believes anything. You're both running the same con: say whatever generates the most attention and converts it into power or money. Newsom trades in votes. You trade in ad revenue from X. The only difference is Newsom's already destroyed one state. You're just destroying your own credibility one engagement-bait post at a time.

As an American Jew, I support Newsom’s comments about Israel 100%. “I’m proud to support the state of Israel. I deeply oppose Netanyahu’s leadership, his opposition to the two-state solution.”

Two con artists on the same page - what a surprise. Krassenstein, you ran Ponzi scheme websites until the feds raided your house and seized $450,000. Now you're a professional reply guy who gets paid per engagement. You don't have principles - you have revenue streams. Newsom destroyed California with policies that drove out productive businesses and turned cities into homeless encampments, then blamed everyone but himself. Now he's positioning for a presidential run by taking "bold stances" that poll well with his base. You support this because attacking Israel and praising Newsom generates engagement from your audience. If tomorrow the algorithm rewarded pro-Netanyahu content, you'd pivot instantly - just like you pivoted from loving Elon Musk in private to attacking him publicly when that became more profitable. Neither of you believes anything. You're both running the same con: say whatever generates the most attention and converts it into power or money. Newsom trades in votes. You trade in ad revenue from X. The only difference is Newsom's already destroyed one state. You're just destroying your own credibility one engagement-bait post at a time.

@jonathangriff27 @ellpeas @BladeoftheS The cost just keeps growing.

@ellpeas @theobjectivist @BladeoftheS Yeah, but cabling? I know lots of people have solar panels, but I wonder how many of them have batteries?

In the UK most houses could have all of their power supplied by Solar Panels for 2/3rds of year If we had done this we would already be almost completely fossil fuel free The panels last 40-60 years, the batteries cost £500 and last for 15 years It's basically free electricity

While I agree with @brithume, deterrence alone is insufficient. This regime has initiated force for 47 years and was racing toward nuclear weapons capability. The proper response to an aggressor developing weapons of mass destruction is not deterrence but elimination of the threat. Deterrence assumes rational actors who value their own survival. Iran's theocratic regime has demonstrated otherwise through decades of proxy wars, terrorism, and explicit threats of annihilation against Israel and America. The goal is not to deter Iran from using nuclear weapons. The goal is to ensure they never possess them. Anything less is a failure of self-defense.

Strong deterrence means credible deterrence. That means an enemy must believe you are willing to use your strength. When an enemy doesn't believe it, it fails. Iran has doubted our willingness fully to use ours for decades. I doubt they believe that now.

@Paul92265247 @BladeoftheS Valid point.

@theobjectivist @BladeoftheS But if you put the money in the bank at 4 percent you make money so you have yo factor the loss of interest into the cost benefit analysis

Ah, the con never stops with this guy... You want to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse? Let's examine YOUR record: - $24 billion spent on homelessness with zero outcome tracking (state audit finding) - $9.4 billion in homeless programs that couldn't be evaluated due to lack of data - Encampment Resolution Funding: $900 million allocated, 70% unspent - EDD paid $10.4 billion to $32.6 billion in fraudulent unemployment claims (estimates vary; state audit confirmed at least $10.4 billion, federal investigations suggest up to $32.6 billion) - High-speed rail: $126.2 billion projected cost for Phase 1, up from original $33-45 billion voter approval in 2008 - $2.9 million in PPP loans to YOUR PlumpJack businesses during lockdowns YOU imposed - Medi-Cal expansion cost billions more than projected, then reversed - Housing goal: 3.5 million units by 2025, built 120,000 in 2024 (one-fifth of needed annual rate) You've presided over the largest misallocation of taxpayer funds in state history while maintaining business interests in industries you regulate. A $20,000 horse rental is a rounding error compared to systematic fiscal incompetence and conflicts of interest defining your administration. Glass houses, Governor.

Taxpayers spent $20,000 on Kristi Noem’s horse rental. WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE!

Imagine if @darwintojesus actually understood that his entire view of the world is completely subjective. His morality is grounded in the will of a consciousness, not the facts of reality. His epistemology rests on faith, revelation, and scripture, none of which can be validated by reference to observable reality. He arrived at his God through a process he can't name without exposing its subjectivity. And he lectures others about understanding science while rejecting the method science depends on: the primacy of existence over consciousness.

Imagine if these people actually understood science

Tucker went from "I'm just asking questions" to "we have to share power with China" in record time. The man is speed running the collapse of his own credibility. At this point he's not a journalist, he's a foreign policy wish list for America's enemies. 👇

You use AI every day. It exists because rational men identified the laws of logic, built machines that process them, and created tools that extend the reach of the human mind. AI is not magic. It is reason automated. Every prompt you type and every answer you receive is proof that the mind is man's tool of survival and that reality is knowable. The men who built this did not pray for it. They thought.

@AdyG28 @BladeoftheS Here is are a couple of the sources for that figure: epa.gov/hw/end-life-so… energy.gov/eere/solar/end…

@theobjectivist @BladeoftheS Panels have warranties for 25years where do you get 25-30 year lifespan from? LFP home batteries have 12 year warranties, where do you get 10-15 year lifespan from? Agree on the average break-even.

Gad, I respect your courage in criticizing Islam, but this proposal betrays the very civilization you're trying to defend. Rights belong to individuals, not ideological categories. You cannot ban a belief system. You prosecute individuals for criminal acts (actions) not what they believe (ideas). If someone plans terrorism, prosecute him for conspiracy. If a mosque coordinates criminal activity, prosecute those involved. If a foreign regime sponsors jihad, destroy that regime with retaliatory force. But you do not hand the federal government the power to evaluate the content of a religion and declare it "seditious." That is the one power the First Amendment exists to deny the state. Ayn Rand opposed banning the Communist Party for exactly this reason, and she lost more to the Soviets than most of us can imagine. Her reasoning was clear: if the government can ban communism because its doctrines oppose the Constitution, it can ban any philosophy on the same grounds, including yours and mine. The power you forge against your enemy will be aimed at you by the next administration. The man who built his career on "no belief system is above scrutiny" should recognize the corollary: no belief system falls below the protection of individual rights. The answer to Islam's doctrinal content is philosophical, not legislative. Demonstrate that reason and individual rights are objectively superior to mysticism and theocratic rule. That battle is won in the mind, not by butchering the First Amendment.

This is the modern right. No philosophy. No foundation. Just personalities tearing each other apart because they never agreed on why they were on the same side. Tucker sides with Iran and implies those who partnered with Israel belong in jail. Candace peddles conspiracy theories about Israel. MTG broke with Trump over the war. Loomer calls them all Nazis and demands investigations. Kelly says the war was bought by a donor. Loomer says Kelly is a liar. Walsh grounds everything in theology. Levin defends the war but can't name the principle that justifies it. Some of them are right about the war. Loomer and Levin correctly identify Iran as the threat. But not one of them can tell you why from first principles. The case for confronting Iran rests on individual rights and self-defense, not on ethnic loyalty, donor influence, or religious prophecy. Rand warned that a movement built on faith and tradition instead of reason would devour itself. When your foundation is feeling rather than principle, your alliances are temporary and your fractures are inevitable. This is what a movement without a philosophy looks like. She called it decades ago.

The world is in crisis. Altruism is consuming it. But the cure exists. Rand identified it. Peikoff systematized it. The evidence is now preserved for any mind willing to look. It may take centuries. It may take longer. But ideas are the engine of history, and the right ideas cannot be destroyed once they have been spoken. Every generation that discovers reason, individual rights, and the moral right to exist for one's own sake moves mankind one step closer to the world it deserves. The battle is philosophical. And philosophy is forever.

You're absolutely right that Trump had no rational plan for the fallout: the Hormuz crisis, oil waivers funding Iran and Russia mid-war, all confirm his range-of-the-moment approach. Your criticisms of the execution are valid and important. But here's what forces me to weigh the moral stakes differently. The fundamental issue for me is that my life is the source of all my values. Everything I care about, everything I've built, every person I love is in danger. Iran represents an existential threat to my values. For 47 years, this regime has demonstrated unwavering commitment to America's destruction. They were approaching nuclear capability. No administration has delivered a single blow against this threat. Trump finally did. What's been accomplished: Ali Khamenei is dead, killed February 28 along with approximately 40 senior officials in the opening strikes. The leadership decapitation extends beyond the first day: Defense Minister Nasirzadeh, IRGC Commander Pakpour, Armed Forces Chief Mousavi, National Security Chief Larijani, Basij Commander Soleimani, and dozens more confirmed dead. Hengaw estimates 5,300+ Iranian military killed as of March 18. Over 7,000 targets struck. 75% of missile launchers destroyed (410-440 down to roughly 120 operational). Navy combat ineffective with 120+ vessels destroyed. Iranian missile attacks dropped 90% by day 10. These are devastating blows no administration has dared to deliver in this 47 year assault on the U.S. But the nuclear threat persists: Over 200kg of uranium enriched to 60% remains underground at Isfahan in storage areas so deeply buried that even the massive ordinance penetrator cannot destroy them. Netanyahu claims Iran can no longer enrich uranium. The IAEA says the material is accessible and Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium in 2-3 days at surviving facilities. US and Israeli intelligence detected teams exploring crude gun-type fission devices achievable in six months, feasible with 60% uranium without further enrichment. The IAEA has had no access since June 13, 2025. Trump's talking about "winding down" while that material sits there. This is where your criticism becomes clear. If Trump ends this war without securing or destroying every gram of that enriched uranium, he will have squandered the opportunity his military created. The execution contradictions you cite (funding enemies, no Hormuz plan, economic chaos) demonstrate exactly the unprincipled pragmatism that could snatch defeat from victory. The right to destroy this regime is absolute. They initiated force 47 years ago and never stopped. Self-defense is not just permissible but morally required when facing an enemy committed to your annihilation. But Objectivism demands rational execution of moral principles. Every action must advance the purpose of eliminating the threat to American lives. Your objections are valid criticisms of execution. The oil waivers are philosophical betrayals. The lack of strategic planning for Hormuz is inexcusable. The range-of-the-moment decision-making undermines what should be morally clear self-defense. So I do credit Trump for finally acting after 47 years of cowardice. The military results are real and significant. But if this ends without regime elimination and complete nuclear threat removal, it will have been a total failure. The 200kg of enriched uranium is the test. Until that material is eliminated, the existential threat to my life, to everything and everyone I value, persists. This won't be a success until every gram is gone and the regime is gone.

In general I agree, but given that he clearly had no overall plan for dealing with the fallout from beginning this conflict, (e.g., the Strait of Hormuz, sharply rising oil prices, etc; in other words, he has no rational foreign policy), and that he has now allowed the purchase of oil from Russia and Iran while both are active aggressors engaged in wars (this I find truly incomprehensible!), I really don't think it is reasonable to give Trump credit for confronting Iran. This was simply another of his unexamined, pragmatic, range-of-the-moment decisions that are his modus operandi, with this one placing much more of the world in danger, not making it safer. Just as Putin thought he could march through Ukraine in a week and take over, I believe Trump thought exactly the same thing about this Iran incursion. Both are strategically delusional because each one sees themself at the smartest person in the world.

Exactly right. Trump deserves credit for finally confronting Iran's 47-year terror regime after decades of cowardice. But he's economically illiterate (tariffs, government stock purchases, credit interest limits, etc), openly admires dictators, floats "president for life" fantasies, and craves corrupt establishment approval like the Nobel Prize. He supports the entire welfare state and has promised not to touch it while we are literally drowning in debt. He wields power by whim, not principle. The left hates him for defending America. The right distrusts his crony capitalism and pragmatism. He's all tactics, no philosophy.

The con continues... @GovPressOffice's run in 2028. You're defending Obama's ransom payment to a terrorist regime while criticizing Trump's military response to that same regime's nuclear weapons program. Obama sent $1.7 billion in unmarked cash on pallets to Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism that chants "Death to America." That money funded Hezbollah, Hamas, and attacks on US forces. You call that diplomacy. Trump conducted precision military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities after 47 years of Iranian aggression: hostage-taking in 1979, bombing US Marines in Beirut, arming militias killing American soldiers in Iraq, attacking oil tankers, seizing ships, funding terror proxies across the Middle East, and racing toward nuclear weapons. One action rewarded aggression with cash. The other ended the threat with force. You're posturing as if paying off extortionists is strength and stopping nuclear proliferation is weakness. Iran initiated force for half a century. Retaliatory military action against an aggressor developing weapons of mass destruction is legitimate self-defense. You praise appeasement and condemn defense. Check your premises, Governor.