Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Now, here comes a different example.

Let me consider the example of “welfare”, defined as transfer payments from (an imputed bad one) to an imputed good one.

Something_2a is making funds available according to certain criteria for subjects_2a.

Does that sound more humane than forcing subjects to stop smoking cigarettes?

Still, the government agent dehumanizes.

Who is the subject that fits a particular criteria?

A dehumanized person is.]

[The me_1a who is capable of imposing costs and regulations on subjects_2a is also capable of dehumanizing others_3a.

The imposer’s I, seat of choice_3b, situates the normal context of the mirror of the world_3a as ”his” own_3b. The imposer is courtier to the king.

The imposer imagines that “he” both owns and is owned by the mirror of the world.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[I want to examine the perversity of the imposer

An imposer is a person who joins the sovereign^infra in order to impose ‘the object that brings subjects into organization onto the subjects of the realm’.

What is ‘the something_2a’ that this person chooses?

Let’s say, with the tobacco example, ‘something_2a’ is ‘really expensive cigarettes that are hard to get’. So this person lobbies for increased transaction costs (taxes, restrictions on use, and so on).]

[Who has a label for the heartless imposer?

Slavoj Zizek has a label.

That is what makes Zizek both insightful and entertaining.]

[Who has a label for the imposer?

What label can I apply to I, instrument of the object that brings me into organization with sovereign power_3b.

Since value_1b coheres to desire_1a, there is no internal conflict within this instrument of sovereign power.

The imposer has no heart.]

[Forced conversion is perceived as validation by the imposer.

In that perception, the imposer transitions from self-justification into blasphemy.

The imposer’s I, seat of choice_3b, becomes I, instrument of the object that brings me into organization with sovereign power_3b.]

[In a truly open market, a smokeless cigarette would have been invented as a market response to growing awareness of the health costs of tobacco cigarettes.

The fact that the electronic cigarette was researched and developed outside the USA indicates the extent of market intervention in the name of the Progressive Union-God.]

[In the specific case of the use of tobacco products, the imposer’s stance makes sense. Clinical observations support the imposer’s narrow focus.

However, the narrow focus fails to take into account the point of view of the subject.

The imposer cannot appreciate the motive for smoking in the first place.

Because of this, “she” bans the development of less harmful substitutes. The so-called “electronic cigarette” was not developed in the USA.

Why?

Regulators. Imposers.

How stupid is that?]