Ilya Startsev

"Living for others" and "Living for oneself" are contrary, not contradictory. It's the wrong analogy because planets do not have human minds. There is not only you in your mind, but also others. And others of your relationship have themselves and you in their minds. This perception of others in your mind and the perception of yourself in others' minds is what connects those minds. Such perception can be mental (i.e., through words, facial expressions, etc.) or emotional (i.e., through how the person makes you feel).

I agree with the facts but not the estimate of this criticism. And it is a very harsh and serious accusation, Harrison. So I will ask a fair and objective judgement of myself and my work. All of you are my judges. This thread is the culmination of all ideas discussed and my personal view that resulted from the previous discussions. Whatever I may say about myself is not going to be sufficient to persuade you, so let us concentrate on what I have said in the theory, for that remains my only truth. In Part III.4, I wrote: "the emotional currency can only be genuine and everyone will start equally (with zero reputation)" and I am under the same obligation to start equally with everyone else. Just because I am one of creators of this new economy does not mean that I would even become very wealthy and/or get into the government. And in Part III.2: "There will be more freedom than we have right now and less regulations and infringement in personal lives because E is a self-regulating economy." This means that the government will not be a tyranny or some totalitarian regime like in Brave New World. All that the government will be is (ibid.): "financial and judicial political institution and authority." Only courts and the bank will be governed, not people's lives. The government will be "employed by the citizens" (ibid.) and thus create value for its citizens. It will motivate happiness but not force it. The word "love" that I used previously is not just a word and not made to control people externally. It will be a quantitatively measured emotional response that will reflect economically and create wealth. It is for the benefit of the society as well as all of the individual citizens. I have spoken with the chair of the Department of Economics at NIU, Professor Virginia Wilcox-Gok, and she has told me that not only there is no alternative economic model such as this one, but also that it is a rational as well as an emotional economy. This balance is what I would like to uphold. It is for my selfish benefit only as far as the society in which I will live will be enjoyable for me and my relationships with others. I do not want to control people; I simply want to provide the tools for people to control themselves. The reality in America is that you do not care about relationships as much as people from other cultures do. You think that it has no basis in reality, where only existence exists and unilaterally causes us, as if we were some blind robots who cannot affect existence. I have already mentioned that the research by the Institute of HeartMath has shown that our emotions affect our minds, and this cannot be escaped. Here is the direct quote from their book, Science of the Heart, page 20: "communication between the heart and brain is actually a dynamic, ongoing, two-way dialogue, with each organ continuously influencing the other's function." This is also true in relationships. We affect them and they reciprocally affect us. That is reality as proven by science. As for metaphysics, the arguments can be never ending. What can you say that you feel about your relationships? Do they affect you as well? Or are they just something you are forced to do, something replaceable and ultimately meaningless, like wearing a pair of gloves in the winter?

And I am arguing that people are relationships, literally. Minimally, a person has a particular relationship to himself or herself and to his environment, although that's based on his or her relationships to other people, such as his parents, friends, loved ones. Even a trade is a relationship between a buyer and a seller. So, in other words, people are all connected to each other. There are no completely isolated individuals.

I like your practical edge. Well said and could not agree more. I got to think more on this, though. It's a great idea. P.S. I wonder how the government officials need to think, though. They need to think like Objectivists and yet think about what the other party wants (or should want) as well.

Well written. Now, do I understand correctly that, in other words, everyone is a means to his end? Then he is also the means to the ends of others. All values are the means, not the ends, right? So, everyone and everything (besides oneself) are values only as far as they are the means. So, if the rational man did not realize that something was valuable, would his life be negatively affected? Is that necessary? What if he does not think he is in trouble, never gets in trouble, or does not know better (as Objectivists do not want to know everything and cannot, for that matter) for, say, using the world as the means to his ends? He cares for the world as long as he has not destroyed it, as long as it's valuable for his life. Once the world is destroyed, he will find another world, and the cycle repeats, right? Is this how much you value and thus care for the world, nature, culture, and society? They can come and go, but the individual stays, correct?

Yes, believe it or not, a national conflict in the United States of America. The price of helping to resolve it is mutual agreement and collaboration to build a better nation. The result: peace and prosperity. Is it possible, you ask? Yes, it is.

Do you agree that there is a national conflict in America? If so, would you not want to help resolve it? Ignoring conflicts leads to strife. And I am not trying to spread fear here. I see what's happening in real life. Maybe generating conflicts is what you like doing though. If so, then don't pretend that Objectivism is a positive philosophy. Good argument, thanks. I will look into it.

You are right. I want to be clear: I am against those programs as well. Now, we are dealing with the government, so we have to use rhetorical tools to "trick" (i.e., persuade by any possible means) them to side with us: both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats hate Objectivism, but if we can prove to them that Neo-Objectivism is not the same thing, they could side with us and then we can change their thinking, so they will stop this governmental madness.

That's a positive thought. Except the US-installed presidents can become much worse despots. Iraq and Iran are two examples. P.S. Do you have positive thoughts about America also?

I see that that's the way you like to think. Would you like all sellers to act in the same manner as the little kid, so we have a society full of irresponsible children trying to sell as much as they can?

I apologize for continuing this discussion while being ignored for supposedly wanting to "erase Ayn Rand's effects on history" if that is even possible. Here is my analysis of "Rand's effects on history" (additions are welcomed): 1) the 60s: a) LaVey's Satanism inspired by Ayn Rand; b ) the sexual revolution, for promiscuity was a big part of Rand's life and her characters; c) Neoconservatism, which lead to the wars in the Middle East because Americans became morally superior and just against other cultures; 2) the 90s: the social collapse and dissolution of the U.S.S.R. caused and spread by ideological, cultural, and moral corruption from America; 3) the 21st century: a) Alan Greenspan and the financial crisis of 2008; b ) the Tea-Party that caused the government shutdown of 2013 and stalled all social operations, thus causing the loss of billions of dollars as well as the irresolvable conflicts between Democrats and Republicans... What's next?

That kid would not be selling his lemonade if he had no customers in mind. To sell is to persuade to sell, and persuasion is a social phenomenon. In other words, the kid was aware that he would sell this lemonade to others to benefit them. If he would sell bad lemonade, now, that's a different question. Then the kid would be selfish and not rational, wouldn't he? So, there are two things that do not connect in your statement: 1) selling for the benefit of oneself; 2) selling rationally and justly.

Please name me a non-Objectivist who completely and honestly understands Objectivism, and I will with pleasure plunge into studying his or her works. A free market is possible, yes. What will happen though, once it arrives? I need evidence. No evidence = no predictive power. (However, if it is an acceptable-by-majority philosophy, like Neo-Objectivism strives to be, then there is nothing wrong with trying what hasn't existed yet.) And even though Rand argued in an interview that she can foresee events (like a prophet would), I suggest not completely trusting everything she said or wrote. After all, she had no complete formal education. She was still a great philosopher, though.

Your reasoning goes as follows: we have never seen a free economy and want to try it. There is no historical or empirical basis for this. It is a faith, not a conviction. How do you know that it will work? One financial crisis was not enough? Everyone cannot be an Objectivist. Look around yourself. How does Objectivism stand against other philosophies? Or wait, yes, of course, nobody understands Objectivism unless you are an Objectivist. Makes no sense like any circular reasoning. What makes sense is what is going to happen with a minority like Objectivists against the whole world. I know what will happen. To illustrate it bluntly: imagine yourself on an island filled with hungry rats. If you won't find a way to feed them, you won't last long.

Hm, then I have misunderstood you. I thought that the "theory of history" of Rand was that individuals are better off without strict government regulations. Has there ever been a society like so? No, never. And the only example you are going for is America, which is mixed economy. Please correct me, if there had ever been anything close to free-market capitalism historically.

Then I want to understand how you understand it. Help me out with this internal look. I have read The Virtue of Selfishness, and Rand there mentioned that you may do things for the sake of others but only in emergency situations. It's true, we are not living in an emergency situation, as commonly known. We are living in peace. So, who cares? Well, I like being proactive. This philosophy is for the time when new financial crises will show whether Objectivists have learned to care for others... or not. Even though caring for others is allowed in some instances/exceptions in Oist philosophy, it is not stressed enough in my opinion.

Considering that what I am going to say is going to be ignored anyway, I will be brief. If you are not on the way to allying with transhumanists and becoming invincibly ignorant and extremely conservative dogmatics like fundamental Christians, then you have misunderstood me.

Do you want to go back? Only it's worse now. Those people at least had families, wives, children. Nowadays being single is the standard. And I think Vandals were Slavs, pissed off at how Romans treated slaves. Mongols were Slavs as well. Only they set Europe into the Dark Age. Besides, I thought history was not important for Objectivists. Either you look at the historical context or you don't. I am following you here.

It does make life easier, and comfort is indispensable. How much of this comfort is too much though? Is comfort more important than being human? Do you realize that they are making bionic humans nowadays? And making military men into people without hearts and emotions. Perfect killing machines. Similarly, people give up their lives for technology. Here is a video you should watch, if you haven't see it.

Part II. The Theory of Emotional Economy 1. Introduction Would you like to live in a world where there are no taxes, no material costs of production, no military, no wars, no crime, no corruption, and there is just one law – emotional love? This world is real and practicable. There will be no financial crises that are caused by emotions economists cannot predict. In the beginning and transitionary stage (T), we will live in a hybrid economy with more than one currency (or dimension to our living). However, in the long run and ideally, there will also be no taxation necessary because, instead, it will be either a pure emotional economy or an advanced hybrid economy. 2. Basic mechanics There are positive and negative emotional responses that can be measured (a sharp interstitial interval on an electrocardiogram [ECG] is negative, its round edge is positive, as shown by Institute of HeartMath’s neurocardiological research and technologies; Science of the Heart, pp. 18-9, 44; some quotes from the book). A rubber bracelet on your hand can measure your heart rate, has an electronic scanner, and holds an account connected to the National Emotion Bank (the NEB) that authorizes it. To pay is to give “thanks” and be scanned or send it to a public account number through a number pad. A scan is activated by an appropriate thought response. When someone pays you directly, your reputation grows by the person's positive response or decreases from a negative response (for transactions with an emotional credit, see Section 6). 3. Reputation The reputation is the key to the social and career success. More expensive purchases and stores may require a reputation clearance. Reputation will not decrease through purchases, one cannot pay directly to one’s own account, and one is not scanned continuously – only at transactions volunteered by the purchaser. To be employed as a CEO or some other executive with power and influence over others, one will be required to have some minimum reputation. One can also make one's account public within the company or outside of it. If it's a public figure outside a company, he or she is allowed to permanently publicize his or her account. The reputation at the moment of publicizing will be frozen and will not decrease or be lost, unless the person dies. It is also impossible to transfer individual reputations (for other types of accounts, see Section 8). This way the employees can find the public account online (or through advertisements or word of mouth) and may pay positive or negative emotions to this person over distance (for negative responses on public account, see Section 6). The government will be a republic, so people who will take care of the NEB, courts, and the police department will be an electorate that will make all the decisions in addition to electing a leader. Being a member of an electorate will also require reputation and a public account. 4. Special accommodation For people with artificial hearts or heart/emotional problems, a more expensive device will need to be developed in the later generations of the economy (see Section 9 for generations of economy). The accommodation device will be a cap (using EEG [electroencephalography] instead of ECG) that will access the impulses of the emotional center of the brain and accurately interpret them into positive or negative emotions and accurate gradations thereof. A person will be allowed to enter the market whenever he or she will be conscious of the purpose and usage of the device (the same as with bracelets). Love and appreciation will be the universal currency. 5. Basic outline of features There will be three kinds of accounts: individual, company (see Section 7), and property (see Section 8). Two types of each account: private and public. Private account numbers (whether individual, property, or company) will not be known by anyone and will only use encrypted traces, but one’s account transactions and reputation balances can be checked online on the NEB’s website. For economic gradations, see Section 9. For a simplistic representation, see the Figure 1. For more detailed information, see Figure 2. Figure 1: Infographic Figure 2: The Formal Structure 6. Emotional credits and debt There will be emotional credits (what you are being paid over time) and debts (what you have to pay over time), but only one payment to a particular account per day will be allowed by the NEB (this is true of any payment, not just debt or credit, except for stores). Debts will have no interest, will not change in value, and will only be counted in terms of the minimum amount of personal daily responses in which they have to be paid off in full. However, profits on one’s account can help pay debts faster (see additional features in Section 10). Some debts may also require minimum emotional responses (in a later generational economy, see Section 9), so people will have to learn or find ways to increase their positive emotions while working, climbing the career ladder, or being public figures. Since reputation will not go below zero or a set limit (as in public accounts), negative responses may automatically become debts. An ability to maintain a constant positive disposition will be like a permanent wallet with money and will be indispensable as well as helpful in getting others to pay off one’s debts. There will be no bankruptcy because all debts must be paid off, and all payments will be genuine and will come from the heart. Disbanding a public company will unfreeze the company’s reputation to pay off any debts and may deplete connected property accounts, if necessary. Only company’s reputation can be transferred to connected individual accounts as profits. Only company and property accounts can be bequeathed. The only way to lose a reputation and debts is dying a natural death. Disbanding a property account also destroys all of its reputation. No multipliers of any kind will be allowed to increase emotional payments, so managers and employees will be motivated to have close personal relationships. This means that a manager will have to pay each employee per task, quota, or day, depending on business practice or contract. 7. Stores In a hybrid economy, hybrid payments may be required or motivated. For example, a less expensive gas price per gallon plus one emotional payment for the whole purchase. However, in the long run, there will be two kinds of stores. In the beginning there may be stores that are less expensive, convenience outlets to shop for items of first need, and these stores will not require any reputation of its customers. The following is an example of a simple grocery store purchase in a developed emotional economy. Take two gallons of milk. As you are walking past an exit scanner, it will blink green (positive), red (negative), or yellow (error) after your bracelet as well as the codes of the products will be scanned. A positive payment is divided and distributed to the store and the producer (whether national or not, no tariffs will restrict international trade, only a choice of the store owner(s)), who receives only one payment for all produced items in a single purchase. Since businesses will ideally have no costs of production, it will not matter whether a payment is received for one item or many. In a different instance, a negative payment will be automatically sent to the payer's account as an emotional debt, the positive equivalent of which (or more, if it takes several lesser payments in the later generational economy) will have to be paid to the automatically saved trace of the store's private account. In the case of an error, either scan again or wait for a store employee with a store's account bracelet to approach you and motivate a positive response. Ultimately, the store's account will follow its programmed procedure on distributing the payment among all the owners of the company’s account (if the account does not own an emotional debt, which needs to be paid first). In the case of more expensive stores, there may be a reputation requirement in order to shop there. In this type of stores, all items will cost a specific amount of emotional points, so purchases will either require an emotional debt or will have to be paid along with a remainder (in a later generational economy, see Section 9). 8. Property You can create a property account (whether private or public) that will be connected to an individual or company account, but only in form and not in contained reputation. You can make a profit on the property reputation when it is sold on an emotional credit. Property can be measured as a percentage of a company account. If you are alone connected to it, it belongs to you 100%, but by connecting others, the percentage will become shared. You can even self-insure your own property. Imagine, for example, getting up at home every time in a good mood and sending a positive response to the account of your apartment (one can do so online through the private account). Every day, your reputation will grow as a result. And if someone other than you will destroy this apartment, and he or she is proven guilty by a court decision, then this person (or people) will own a reputation debt to your account plus potentially an additional penalty of emotional debt (as for any other crime). This credit can also be used toward a purchase of another apartment (or house). However, a reputation requirement will be in order unless you insured your apartment by an insurance company that already has an ongoing relationship with real estate sellers. 9. Emotional gradations This will be an evolutionary economy - spiritual as well as technological. Its development will depend on improving technologies that distinguish emotions with 100% accuracy. Initially, in the first generation of this economy, all positive emotions will be read as +1 ep (emotional point) and negative eps as -1. In the second generation of the economy, there will be low and high gradations of emotions, so that the maximums will now be +2 and -2 eps, and so forth, each generation increasing the maximum by one ep. In other words, the generation of economy equals the amount of emotional gradations, also quantitatively called eps, possible in that economy. The economy will never stagnate because the maximum strength of an emotional response of the previous generation will be equated to a higher ep of a new generation. The prices may rise, since the payments can increase, although the amount of emotional responses can stay the same. For example, consider the fifth generation with five gradations (e.g., 1=peace, 2=satisfaction, 3=joy, 4=happiness, 5=euphoria). The maximum response in the first generation can only equal a peaceful state in this latter generation. The currency of the previous generation may increase in value for the following generations. The bank will convert currencies automatically. However, all decimals will be rounded down to the nearest whole number. This can be considered the system’s price for an exchange of currency. In a similar manner, until the time when the national banks will be coordinated by the global bank, exchange rates of different national banks will have to exchange the values accordingly in order to match the generations where the payment will be received (payee’s generation - Destination Generation or DG; whereas payer’s generation is Original Destination or OG). So, in the case when different generational economies coexist, for example, +1 ep paid in the first generation will become +2 ep in the second generation economy. For another example, to convert the currency of the 2nd generation to the 3rd, the transferred value or payment of the home economy will have to be multiplied by the generation of 3 (DG) and divided by 2 (OG). Hence, the formula: (the value to be exchanged *DG) / OG e.g., say a payment is 1 ep in generation 2. In generation 3, the value will become: (1 * 3) / 2 = 1.5 eps, which means that the maximum payment of 2 in the lower generation will equal the maximum payment in the new generation. The converted final value (i.e., 1 ep), however, will be separate from the decimal value, which will have to be absorbed by the system for the exchange to the bank of DG. This decimal remainder of the conversion of that payment will not be in effect (to be considered absorbed by the system). Prices and reputation requirements may rise (as decided by business owners) when people will gain an opportunity to send improved moods in the new generation. In the primary interests of the government, the economy will constantly grow and develop. 10. Additional features The website (www.neb.org) will be very flexible. It will not only motivate reputational increases through advertisements (e.g., “Give a Thanks for…”), but also through a dynamic and competitive reputation ladder. Additional online features will include: being able to cancel time accounts (when sending more than one response in a day to be distributed on daily basis), regulating the disbursement of profits toward your debts (setting percentages or weights of importance of debt accounts or forestalling some payments altogether), disabling your account (as a protective measure in case your bracelet is lost and while waiting until a new bracelet, connected to the same account, arrives), and setting up secure online transactions (for private business owners who can administer credits to clients through the website). Part III. Argumentation for the Theory 1. Defense against weaknesses Self-induced syndromes are fascinating phenomena. They will be great case studies in any society, and their research will help in identifying the factors of people self-regulating their emotions and becoming more psychologically resilient. There will be a need for people to develop an ability to consciously control and optimize emotions in the new economy. As for drug-induced states, it will be a relief for individuals who will be struggling in the new economy. Not everyone will want to do drugs, and limited dealing with drug-addicts can hinder the growth of their reputations in the long run. I am sure that people who do drugs will be recognized by trained company managers, whether on the spot in an interview or from work performance. So far, very few can control their emotions, but it does not mean that in the future no one will. So, getting very rich in this state is not guaranteed, since there will be a discrimination against these people and reputation growth is relationship-based, but the government will not enforce any side. Remember that the government will not regulate the economy in any way; it will only serve as an equitable judge, protector of order and peace and will maintain the economy in safety. The sadists will be the fogyish people still enthralled by the purely competitive edge to living. What I have to say to these people is so: be who you may, but the ultimate goal is genuine love. This society that I am proposing to build allows people all their freedoms, yet it also is much more than a mere market, it motivates a true cooperation and a spiritual evolution on the personal level to control one’s emotions (the evolution from bottom-up, not top-down [like globalization]), and at least this makes it a better alternative to our current paradigm. Some important terms to remember: M for monetary economy, E for emotional economy, T (M+E) for transitionary hybrid economy, G for the goal of a taxless (not tax-obligated) complete economy. G can be a pure E, a different economy, or even a T, where M, learning from E, can have taxes voluntarily paid as donations. Money changes hands in business and trade relationships. However, a "thanks" will as easily replace those, especially in the area of friendships, love, and family that are not covered by money and not reflected in M. Besides, if it's hard for one to generate a positive response in public, one can always get emotional debt and pay it off in the solitary comfort of one's home. Do not confuse the greed for money and the greed for love. These greeds conflict in M but not in E. Think like this: love is wealth, and wealth is love. People may convert their possessions into positive emotions. I am betting that more will convert and the rest will have no choice but to adapt. What will win in our world: positive or negative, if they are balanced? This whole project will not work if the majority will not pick up on it. But if the majority will, the world we live in will change, and the rest will adapt to it. The government will control the NEB, courts and the police. People's rights to live a free and happy life will be defended. However, this is in the long run, of course (let's call this ideal goal G). In the beginning (or transitionary period T), it may work as a business with no way to sow justice. That is why it is paramount for the majority and the government to support this system. Let us not mix G and T. There will be no prisons only if everyone will be in E (or some G). However, not much in our world will change when T will begin. It will start with people wearing bracelets and trading with others with bracelets because they will share similar values. How is that going to negatively affect the monetary people? It won't. Discrimination or violence are still against the laws in M, so it will be the same then. The government will not segregate people depending on what economy they support, or will it? Please keep in mind that E will start in M. There will be no area, at first, where E will not overlap with M. People from E will have a choice to exit M to start a community somewhere else, but probably only after M would crash. This whole project will start in M by the people who will support E. The jurisdictions we have in M will cover those in E while in T. There will be no physical punishment in E (or some other G), only fines. But in T E it is in the best interests of the people to support G. Love will be free, only motivated by a standard of living to increase (being always negative will not increase it, and no payments to one’s own account will be possible). Love is a relationship. Selfishness is the relationship. Therefore, love is selfish. The idea of self will have to change. It is not about physical bodies of self or others anymore. It is about those nonphysical, emotional relationships that connect all bodies. However, it can only start with the self. This economic theory is all about adding a moral and ethical aspect to economics because people believe that an unregulated economy is chaos and anarchy. Let’s ask: Why do others believe that a free economy is chaos? The reason they believe this is that there had never been created a universal set of morals for an economy. Neither Christians nor Marxists provided a moral code for economics. Objectivists provide such a code. But Objectivism is an ideology, not an economy. An ideology is always exclusive, and there will always be people who disagree with it and thus do not give their assent. Neo-Objectivism is not just an ideology but a system of economy as well. There is no need to accept the ideology by itself. One will be free to choose what to believe and yet share values with everyone regardless of their philosophical values or beliefs. This is not a debate for an ideology (which is a losing debate). It is a completely new debate for a completely new economy. People do not have to understand, believe, or even like the economy they are in. People may hate money and still use it. The same thing applies to E. People will not have to believe, understand, or love the emotional currency. This new currency will become transparent and unquestionable just like the axiom of money is today. 2. Reasons for assent In E, the government is employed by the citizens to do three things: 1) maintain the servers that will store emotional scans; 2) perfect the accuracy of scans and improve the technologies required to make those scans; 3) help resolve conflicts and maintain peace and order in society through the court system and police. There will be more freedom than we have right now and less regulations and infringement in personal lives because E is a self-regulating economy. It will be a market economy where people will be truly responsible for their values and trade because they will internalize it. People will not be lost in happiness because negativity will still be a part of the system, as its cost and constraining factor. Drug-induced individuals and sadists will be discriminated against just as they are in this system. Think of it this way: E will keep everything from our monetary economy (M) but will resolve the following: 1) the Infinite Growth Paradigm leads to financial disasters in M, but not in E, as it’s always evolving, and it will be optimal to store the values on the servers than to produce or obtain material currency; 2) friendships, natural cultures, and other metaphysical values and relationships will become valued more than money and thus produced and motivated much more freely (i.e., it will be an idealistic/realistic society); 3) people will become more cooperative and less competitive (in the bad sense of non-Objectivist, immoral competition) because, among many other reasons, there will be no way to steal or bequeath individual reputation, which will be erased at natural death. Neo-Objectivism will be an actual moral economy, not just a moral economic ideology, which is Objectivism. It’s a facelift to Objectivism. This requires a completely different interpretation of the government. Since we skip socialism in order to integrate markets with a global communistic society, the government becomes a financial and judicial political institution and authority. It sets the standard of currency, produces it, and generates the economy. The court system and its judgments is another important function of the government. Everything else is secondary. The government is not only a bank ith its standards of currency but also a court with its standard of justice. Without seeing how it works in practice can lead to the danger of overtheorization, but let’s say that maybe it is possible for such a government and society to operate even without police, just as military will not be required. Only empirical evidence will show the results, but so far we have to compare this theory against the current socioeconomic model. 3. The alternative that is the current paradigm The greed, or motivation, for money as a material substance and as a means to an end conflicts with the greed for knowledge (open-mindedness) or the greed for love (love of society) as ends in themselves. It is not the greed for money that we need, but the greed for relationships with others, that is, the greed for ourselves. Money is rational and not balanced with emotions; money is incomplete. There is no human emotional element inherent to money. But emotions complete money and help make us human. On the other hand, money alone is coming from an inhuman apparatus, that is, a machine. Worshipping the value of money is like worshipping perfect competence for making money – both means to an end – and thus becoming perfect machines, unfeeling and intransigent. Humans are on their way to becoming such industrial machines. And once they become automatized, they will not only lose their bodies and consciousness, but also their souls. Emotional economy is the only way provided right now to save humanity from the conversion into perfect, competent machines. Unfortunately, not everyone can be an Objectivist. Even though Objectivism is proclaimed to be universal, it is not universal because not everyone supports it and never will. There will always be other ideologies in existence, but Neo-Objectivism is different. It is an economic theory more than just a particular, and thus limiting, way to think and live. The only particularity is the name, which was given to it more as a dedication than anything else. However, if emotional currency is in conflict with anything (including money), then there is a problem with it. If it can replace money without conflict, then there is no problem. We simply need to add humaneness to the economic sphere, add a heart, a vibrant, qualitative, and lively energy of emotions to the frozen, cold, quantitative, and logical energies of monies (or gold or equivalent material values). Emotional currency will also add a healthy competitive/cooperative edge to personal relationships. I should note that money cannot apply to personal relationships at least for non-Objectivists, as the research by Machael J. Sandel has shown (see this video). If you love competition, also, why not let emotional currency compete with the monetary one and see which one will win in the future for the future? Although I do not have authority and I am only one mind, what I have to say deals with everyone, and ultimately, I think, both currencies will survive, but it will change our thinking and the way we live our lives for the better. It is called psychological resilience when one self-regulates one’s emotions that reflect socially through a self-regulating economy, and all of this is a key to a healthy lifestyle and a friendly society. Extensive research by the Institute of HeartMath has shown that the heart has its own independent neurological net (little “brain”) and affects our perceptions and intelligence. The synthesis of the heart and the brain of the nervous system produces quantifiable coherence states that positively influence our overall health, strengthen immune systems, and cause various positive changes in behavior and lifestyles (see Science of the Heart). Ayn Rand never mentioned how to transition into the free market capitalism without violence, a revolution, or a strike of the major industrialists. None of those things are happening. What need to be done are not the radical measures of Atlas Shrugged, but merely the support of the government and the public to implement the new and peaceful economy. Economy and society are equally important, and neither individualistic market economy nor collectivistic society should be emphasized over the other. Wealth and health should both be chosen, as both are a requirement for life. 4. Implementation and implications The first thing that we must do to make this a reality is to change our thinking from purely monetary to additionally emotional because many problems of the world are connected to the current economic system, as shown in the documentary Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (2011). Implementing it in stages and in specific locations, and then transitioning to the new economy will only eliminate problems in the long run when everyone will get used to the new system. Since the emotional currency can only be genuine and everyone will start equally (with zero reputation), money cannot be converted to it, unless by selling the already owned property for emotional credits, but everyone can start living in the two currencies to the point when the emotional currency will cover every aspect of human relations in the world. Then money can be abandoned, if necessary. The emotions that control the economy will be controlled by rational minds without conflicts. Together, we can make it a reality. This new economy becomes a market of untapped potential - a new marketing system will have to be designed for it. Managers, attracted by the supporters of the system, may issue savings coupons to customers with bracelets, thus differentiating their businesses from those purely monetary ones of their competitors. One has to remember that economy is the soul of society. We want a friendly society and a free economy. We do not need a conflict between Democrats and Republicans, Marxists and Objectivists. The answer is Emotional economy because emotions help make us human. Positive emotions will benefit the society, and negative emotions will cost it. This is the time for collaboration between Democrats and Republicans, Neo-Objectivists and non-Objectivists, no matter who you are. This is the future. First, we need to create a subsidiary of the Federal Reserve that will be the National Emotion Bank. A website will be created that will provide access to bracelet owners and a reputation ladder to be displayed publicly only with consent. Second, we need to create a monetary business for manufacturing these bracelets (make them different colors or we can even put watches on them with number pads to key in public account numbers in the later generations). The goal with the business is to give bracelets away with no payment required or make them very inexpensive and affordable. That’s why the government and public support is crucial. Third, we will need to get these bracelets and start using them by converting as many of our relations to emotional as possible. It can become like a new game between friends, lovers, and family at first and businesses and countries (other NEBs) at a later, global stage of development, when the creation of the Global Emotion Bank will become possible. This work is dedicated to Ayn Rand and her followers, the Objectivists, because, without you and Ayn Rand, this idea would not have been possible. The greatest payment that I can give you for your support is not only my thanks but also having me on your side.

What's the big deal? Just say what you think about technologies. Aren't they robotizing humankind? Or humankind wants to be robotized?

Just to clarify, all I attempted to do with Part I is to show that the statement "I live for myself" (taken as the new oath) is less contradictory than "I do not live for others" (taken from the current Objectivist oath "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."). It is a criticism of the entire philosophy, not some particular application of its oath. In most cases, your oath can be applied properly and noncontradictorily, but it can also lead to violence and/or destruction (as in Ragnar Danneskjöld's case). I wanted to show that no violence or destruction is necessary in the first place when there is a harmonic evolution through Neo-Objectivism. What I have posted is not complete. My claim of integration has not been supported yet. It is a connection to the upcoming Part II, but first I would like you to feel accustomed to the philosophy before I post anything else. I should have posted them together--please excuse this error.

Part I. The Philosophy of Neo-Objectivism The problem with Objectivism is that the following two statements are considered the same: 1) I live for myself. 2) I do not live for others. However, 2) does not imply that you live for yourself. You may live for no one, not even yourself. So 2) is confused with: 3) I live for myself, but not for others. 4) “I live for others” is contrary to 1) but contradictory to 2) and 3). Hence the contradictoriness to 4) unites 2) and 3) and makes them seem to be the same statement. By the definition of the current Objectivist model, the reality is the market, and the real market is others, that is, the sum of individual minds, and life is inseparable from the market because the market and all items traded are caused and co-created by the minds. 3) “I live for myself, but not for others” => not for the market caused by the minds. However, without the market there could be no money, and the market involves a trade between a minimum of two people in order to make money. You are not living for the sake of what you produce, but for the purpose of trading (or sharing) it with others. It is a formal logical fallacy called “black-or-white fallacy” to state that “I live for myself” and “I live for others” are contradictory. Instead, they are contrary and can be dialectically integrated. The negative statement must be removed to avoid the logical contradiction. 1) “I live for myself” is not contradictory because you can add a positive statement “and for the market,” and “myself,” limited to this case, implies a relationship to the market. A relationship has two equally distributed ends, and it starts with a relationship to oneself. We can therefore say that “I live for myself” is “I live for the relationships with others.” So, the new oath will be: “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will always live for my own sake.” There is now possible the integration without contradictions of free-market capitalism and global communism, the market and the society. This idea was sought in and was missing from Atlas Shrugged.

Technological goodness by itself is bad. Just as anything by itself is bad. (I am arguing the same about Objectivism.) Technological progress must be coupled with spiritual evolution, viz., the evolution of consciousness. A pertinent quote from Beyond Good and Evil, 88: "Pharisaism is not a degeneration in a good man: a good deal of it is rather the condition of all being good." Such Pharisaism can be either technological or spiritual. Either one is the right of stagnation.

The idea here is that, the way I interpret it, without using one's soul (see P.S.), one could lose it, ibid., 20, original italics: "declare war, relentless war unto death, against the atomistic need" which still leads a dangerous afterlife in places where no one suspects it, just like the more celebrated "metaphysical need": one must also, first of all, give the finishing stroke to that other and more calamitous atomism which Christianity has taught best and longest, the soul atomism. Let it be permitted to designate by this expression the belief which regards the soul as something indestructible, eternal, indivisible, as a monad, as an atomon: this belief ought to be expelled from science! Between ourselves, it is not at all necessary to get rid of "the soul" at the same time, and thus to renounce one of the most ancient and venerable hypotheses-as happens frequently to clumsy naturalists who can hardly touch on "the soul" without immediately losing it. But the way is open for new versions and refinements of the soul-hypothesis; and such conceptions as "mortal soul" " P.S. To differentiate mind from soul, one needs to see what organs these fields correlate to: brain and heart, respectively. Although I originally stated (but deleted) that they contrast, now I am of a mind to say that the mind and the soul are very similar, yet distinct. Their similarity is exactly in that they could be lost if not used. If one stops being rational (e.g., being an Objectivist), one could lose one's mind (literally, not necessarily figuratively). Whereas, if one stops feeling emotions, one could lose one's soul.