Olivia
Online
The Rational Animal ๐ค
@theobjectivist
Champion of Reason, Individual Rights and Capitalism.
United States
Joined January 2025
643 Following
6.4K Followers
3.1K Posts
ย Pinned Tweet
The average American today lives better than John D. Rockefeller did in 1926. That is not an exaggeration. It is a fact.
Rockefeller could not fly across the country in five hours. You can for $200. He could not video call his family from another continent. You do it for free. He had no antibiotics, no MRI, no air conditioning in July. He could not carry every book ever written in his pocket. You are reading this on a device that does all of that and more.
Americans throw away 30-40% of their food. Not because they are wasteful, but because food is so abundant that waste is affordable. Your car has climate control, navigation, and safety systems that did not exist at any price a century ago. Your home has heating, cooling, refrigeration, and entertainment that emperors could not have imagined.
None of this was voted into existence. None of it was redistributed from the rich. It was created by free minds operating in what remains of a free market. Every comfort you enjoy today is the product of a man who thought, invented, produced, and traded voluntarily.
This is what the remnants of capitalism still deliver, even while it is being dismantled. Imagine what a fully free society could build.
If only...
"To save the world is the simplest thing in the world. All one has to do is think."
Leonard Peikoff
@BernieSanders' corruption knows no limits.
The stat is a decade-old UNICEF figure using RELATIVE poverty: below half the national median income. It does not measure deprivation. It measures inequality.
Picture 20 people. Ten are billionaires, the other ten have a million dollars each. By this measure, those ten millionaires are living in "poverty," because they fall below half the median. A million dollars, called poor. That is what the number actually counts. Raise every income and the rate barely moves.
But grant the concern. Your answer is always the same: another hearing, another program, another seizure. The War on Poverty has spent over $20 trillion and you still cite the same misery to justify the next bill. The thing that has actually lifted children out of want is production, the wealth your taxes and "causes" keep punishing.
You don't want to solve it. A solved problem is a lost pretext.
His corruption knows no limits.
The stat is a decade-old UNICEF figure using RELATIVE poverty: below half the national median income. It does not measure deprivation. It measures inequality.
Picture 20 people. Ten are billionaires, the other ten have a million dollars each. By this measure, those ten millionaires are living in "poverty," because they fall below half the median. A million dollars, called poor. That is what the number actually counts. Raise every income and the rate barely moves.
But grant the concern. Your answer is always the same: another hearing, another program, another seizure. The War on Poverty has spent over $20 trillion and you still cite the same misery to justify the next bill. The thing that has actually lifted children out of want is production, the wealth your taxes and "causes" keep punishing.
You don't want to solve it. A solved problem is a lost pretext.
In America today, we rank 34th out of 35 countries in childhood poverty and millions of children are food insecure.
Maybe, just maybe, my Republican colleagues would consider holding a single hearing about how we improve the lives of American kids.
These people are the villains out of Atlas Shrugged. Rand was a prophet because she understood that philosophy moves the world.
The tax will NOT soften any blow. It does the opposite. It delays and raises the cost of everything AI is already solving: cancer and Alzheimer's research, safer surgery, faster diagnosis, software that makes developers and businesses more productive, tools that help writers think. Tax the data centers and you slow all of it.
But she sees none of that. She sees only money to loot for her "causes." The producer is the threat to be managed, the disruption a pretext, the seizure a virtue.
They never create. They only wait for someone else to build something worth taking, then arrive with a tax and a speech about who they're cushioning. A despicable bunch indeed.
If AI could disrupt half the workforce, we canโt wait until people lose their jobs to act.
The companies profiting from AI should help cushion the disruption. That starts with taxing the data centers powering it.
I mean are these so-called reporters serious? Trade fire in fragile CEASE-fire. ๐ค
https://t.co/REhT2itpEm
This is not economics. It is the ancient demand of the parasite, now spoken from a US Senate seat without shame.
Today this evil senator announces his desire to seize half of a private industry and calls it generosity.
The ease with which this looter, and too many others like him, demand the lives of their victims should alarm you. Thirty years ago socialism was named as evil, and deservedly so.
Read his words. He will "give" the public ownership of companies he did not build, fund, or imagine. You cannot give what you do not own so he proposes to take it, by force of law, from the men who created it, and to pass off the theft as a gift to "all of us."
Note their formula. The producer is the "oligarch" whose decisions must be blocked. The man who made nothing is the moral authority who decides. Ability is the crime. Need is the claim. Force is the method.
I will soon be introducing a bill to give the public a 50% ownership stake in the largest AI companies in America.
This would guarantee that the trillions created by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us โ and block oligarch decisions that harm the American people.
And here we still are almost 2 months later. ๐
Iran's theocrats will determine whether Trump destroys them or hands the next president the same 47 year catastrophe. If they are smart enough to restrain themselves they may survive him. History suggests they are not. But survival through self-restraint would require them to act against their own ideology, and men who rule by faith do not think in such terms.
Trump is not a man of principle. He is a man of action without philosophy, who wields force by instinct rather than conviction. He wants a deal with Iran because he believes every conflict is a negotiation and every negotiation can be won through force of personality. This is not strategy. It is the metaphysics of a man who believes reality bends to his will.
You cannot negotiate with a regime that has declared war on reason itself. Iran did not violate the ceasefire because of miscalculation. It violated the ceasefire because its rulers do not seek peace. They seek your submission or death. Hours after the announcement, Iran launched missiles toward Israel, struck Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The following day Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel. The Strait of Hormuz, whose reopening was the central condition of the agreement, remains closed. Prewar traffic averaged over 100 vessels per day. A handful of bulk carriers have trickled through. Iran's military declared it maintains strategic control, issued new routes to avoid its own sea mines, and halted oil tanker traffic within hours. The ceasefire did not fail. It was never honored.
Outcome one: Iran overplays its hand. Trump, who cannot tolerate public defiance, escalates. Operation Epic Fury resumes, not from moral clarity but from wounded vanity. A nation has the right to destroy a regime that initiates force against it. This president may exercise that right for the wrong reasons and wipe out one of the greatest threats modern civilization faces. This unfortunately is the only hope civilization has for this to end well.
Outcome two: He takes the deal, declares victory, and exits. Iran reconstitutes. The next administration inherits the same catastrophe with Trump's name on the agreement that enabled it. And the cycle continues exactly where it left off.
Trump may stumble into the end of this regime. But if not he has bought us time.
As president, Obama read 10 letters a day and still gets emotional over them. Fine as a private man.
But notice what's offered as the virtue. Not the freedom he protected. The feeling he displayed. A museum exhibit to his own compassion.
Feeling is not virtue. The measure of a president is the liberty he leaves behind, not how movingly he wept over the people he governed.
The presidency is not a national shoulder to cry on. Its one job is protecting individual rights.
As President, I would read 10 letters a day sent to me by ordinary Americans. At the Obama Presidential Center, weโll have some of the letters I read โ and responded to โ every night. I still get emotional reading them, and itโs one of my favorite exhibits.
As president, Obama read 10 letters a day and still gets emotional over them. Fine as a private man.
But notice what's offered as the virtue. Not the freedom he protected. The feeling he displayed. A museum exhibit to his own compassion.
Feeling is not virtue. The measure of a president is the liberty he leaves behind, not how movingly he wept over the people he governed.
The presidency is not a national shoulder to cry on. Its one job is protecting individual rights.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even though you chose to open by calling me a fool.
You're describing theft and then assuming it. AI is trained on data that is licensed, purchased, public domain, or used with permission.
Where a creator's rights are actually violated, that's a crime, and the answer is to enforce property rights in court, not to declare everything "collective" and hand it to the state. You don't cure theft by nationalizing the loot.
As for your second point: "if a person did what AI does they'd be sued". If the maker's of Ai were stealing property then the owners can sue. That's the system working. Copyright is a property right, and the courts exist to settle exactly these cases. But notice what you did. You said human creators made that material. True. So it belongs to them, to license or sell as they choose. That's the argument for property rights, not against them.
The moment you say their work belongs to "humanity," you rob the very creators you pretend to defend.
You cannot honor a man by reducing him to his sex life.
It would take thirty seconds to govern. You chose a month of pandering instead.
A New Yorker's sexuality tells me nothing about his work, his character, his worth. Judge men as individuals. That is the only just standard.
Celebrating people by their sexuality is the same collectivism that once condemned them by it. Different package. Identical premise. The group is sacred. The individual is invisible.
A free man needs rights, not parades. You give him neither.
You cannot honor a man by reducing him to his sex life.
It would take thirty seconds to govern. You chose a month of pandering instead.
A New Yorker's sexuality tells me nothing about his work, his character, his worth. Judge men as individuals. That is the only just standard.
Celebrating people by their sexuality is the same collectivism that once condemned them by it. Different package. Identical premise. The group is sacred. The individual is invisible.
A free man needs rights, not parades. You give him neither.
It would take far more than a month to honor the contributions of queer and transgender New Yorkers.
From the Cercle Hermaphroditos in 1895, the first trans advocacy group in the United States, to the drag balls of the Harlem Renaissance, to the Stonewall uprising, to the Lesbian Herstory Archives, to ACT UP!, founded in 1987 as queer people fought for their lives while the Reagan administration looked away, New York City's history has long been shaped by queer and trans New Yorkers.
To all our queer and trans neighbors: you deserve a City where you can afford to live safely, openly, and joyfully.
Happy Pride, New York City.
The looter never rests. He produces nothing, then claims a share of everything.
"Built on humanity's collective knowledge." There is no such thing. Knowledge is not poured into a common vat at birth. Every advance was made by a specific mind: Aristotle's logic, Newton's calculus, Edison's filament, Turing's machine. Each thought alone, and each gave the result to the world by choice. By your logic, the wheel belongs to humanity, so every car maker owes you a stake. The alphabet was "collective," so seize every author. This is the oldest fraud there is: declare a man's achievement the property of those who didn't make it.
The men who built AI used their own reason and capital to create what no collective ever did. Your answer is to brand them oligarchs and demand ownership of their work at the point of a law.
You did not build it. You did not fund it. You spent your life attacking the men who do. The producer owes you nothing.
The looter never rests. He produces nothing, then claims a share of everything.
"Built on humanity's collective knowledge." There is no such thing. Knowledge is not poured into a common vat at birth. Every advance was made by a specific mind: Aristotle's logic, Newton's calculus, Edison's filament, Turing's machine. Each thought alone, and each gave the result to the world by choice. By your logic, the wheel belongs to humanity, so every car maker owes you a stake. The alphabet was "collective," so seize every author. This is the oldest fraud there is: declare a man's achievement the property of those who didn't make it.
The men who built AI used their own reason and capital to create what no collective ever did. Your answer is to brand them oligarchs and demand ownership of their work at the point of a law.
You did not build it. You did not fund it. You spent your life attacking the men who do. The producer owes you nothing.
AI is built on humanityโs collective knowledge.
The wealth it generates must benefit humanity โ not just Elon Musk, Sam Altman and other AI oligarchs.
Thatโs why Iโll be introducing the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act โ to give the public a direct ownership stake.
I posed the challenge on purpose, because the answer most people give is false, and false in a way that shows how they fail to think.
A price isn't lowered by the people who buy. It's lowered by the people who produce. Look at the subsidy: the number on the tag drops, and the crowd cheers. But the cost didn't disappear. It was taken through taxes and hidden, with waste piled on top. The buyer didn't pay less. He paid more, and was told to say thank you.
Look at the chip. It fell from $120 to pennies, and the looter gives the credit to the government's checkbook. But the government paid the high price. It was the producer, scaling his work and competing for customers, who drove the cost down. To buy a thing is not to create it.
The state can spend. Only the mind that produces can lower a cost. People who can't see that difference will be ruled by those who use their blindness against them.
@theobjectivist The price fell, you lost. You never said howโฆ
Both examples confuse who pays with whether the cost fell. Government can't lower a price. It can only move the cost somewhere you don't see it.
Agriculture subsidies: The shelf price drops, but the subsidy comes from taxes. You pay the difference through the IRS instead of the checkout line. Add the deadweight loss from distorted production, overproduction of subsidized crops, and the resources pulled from more valued uses, and the real cost rose. The price tag shrank because the bill was hidden in your tax return.
1960s microchips: Government didn't make chips affordable. It was an early customer (NASA and the military) buying at extremely high prices. What drove costs down was the learning curve and private competition. Fairchild, Intel, and Texas Instruments scaled production and innovated to win the commercial market. Moore's Law was an engineering and market phenomenon, not a procurement one. Prices collapsed over decades because free minds competing for profit kept finding cheaper ways to produce. The government purchases were a high-priced early demand, not the cause of the affordability.
In both cases the price visible to one party fell because the cost was shifted to another party by force. That isn't lowering a price. It's relocating it where the recipient can't see who paid.
I challenge anyone to name a single item you purchase that a politician has ever made cheaper.
Remember this. A gallon of gas cost 57 cents in 1975. Today it is over $4. The gas did not change. The dollar did. The government printed so many of them that each one buys less. That is inflation. That is theft by printing press. And both parties held the press. Democrats printed trillions and named the bill that authorized it the "Inflation Reduction Act." And yes Warren voted for it. It passed 50-50 with Kamala Harris breaking the tie.
Warren is not offering to bring prices down. She is offering to keep printing away your savings while blaming the people who produce what you buy.
And here is the part you may not even realize: if the government had not spent over a century debasing the currency, starting with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and accelerating when Nixon severed the dollar from gold in 1971, that gallon of gas would cost less today than 57 cents thanks to advances in drilling, refining, and transportation technology. They did not just fail to lower prices. They prevented them from falling naturally.
If we want to win in 2026 and 2028, Democrats need to take on the big fights.
Bring costs down.
End the corruption.
End the war in Iran.
Make life easier for working Americans.
No more hand-waving.
It's time to get serious.
No. That was your money to begin with. Giving it back to you doesn't make things cheaper. It just means you have more of your own money to spend. Meanwhile we are still spending ourselves over two trillion dollars per year in debt and no one is addressing that. The end of that road is not where any of us want to arrive I guarantee you that.
Smh. Every premise here is theft, and theft doesn't become virtue because you call it sharing.
The looter always speaks of what's "ours." That is a cue to check and see who's holding the gun.
"AI was trained on generations of human knowledge" so it belongs to everyone? Knowledge isn't a collective pool you draw from by being born. It was discovered, recorded, and built by specific minds. The men who created AI used reason to integrate it into something new. That's production, not plunder.
"Make sure the American people benefit" means seize what you didn't make and call it justice.
You didn't fund it. You didn't build it. You produced nothing. You just see dollar signs. The looter always does.
AI was trained on generations of human knowledge and work.
Now Big Tech is making billions from it.
Itโs time to tax AI and make sure the American people benefit from what they helped build.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
hahvdnwkahdbmwkahdnkah
Seen from Malaysia
Sepibukansapi
Seen from Indonesia
โฃ.โขยฐ ๐ผ๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ค๐๐ ยฐโข.โฃ
Seen from Argentina
BULL . pathan
Seen from Indonesia
ainfareha
Seen from United States
ุงู
ูุงุช
Seen from Israel
ใฏใใใจใใ
Seen from Japan
emily swanson
Seen from United States
GiauTommy
Seen from Indonesia
Stw
Seen from Singapore
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.1M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
108.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
106.9M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.2M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.5M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
86.7M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.5M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.1M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.3M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.4M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.4M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
60.9M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
CNN Breaking News
@cnnbrk
59.9M followers