[In the current example, the imposer only sees the health benefits of reduced use of tobacco products.

The imposer cannot acknowledge the reduction of personal responsibility and freedom.

The imposer cannot allow questions or challenges.]

[What must the imposer do in order to grasp sovereign power for “his” designs?

The imposer must sell “his” heart to the sovereign^infra, the (infra)sovereign religion.

The religion^sov looks down upon and situates, not the person, but the subject.

So, the imposer becomes an instrument of the religion^sov.

The imposer serves an object that brings subjects into organization (whether they want to or not). “He” can only think^pro-object. “He” must deny unintended consequences.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Progressives impose organizational objectives.

What happens when an imposer gets to influence the thought experiment_3a?

What happens when an imposer alters the availability and costs of something_2a that situates the potential of other individuals_1a?]

[If an object^organization is validated by each unforced conversion, then why not appeal to sovereign power in order to force conversion?

For example, why not ban smoking?

Would that not further validate the object^organization?

The answer must be ‘no’.

Sovereign imposition of an object^org reduces the subject’s responsibility and freedom. This is the opposite of building character.]

[Does the institution gain from this exchange?

Certainly. Every success is celebrated.

The institution’s object^organization is validated by the people who buy their services.

The transaction itself serves as a confirmation of the business’ organizational objective.]

[The health-related business treats the individual, not as a subject, but as someone writ large.

The individual pays to form a business-person dyad to help coach “him”. The customer builds character. The customer gains both responsibility (awareness of “himself” in the mirror of the world₃ in regards to something_2H) and freedom (how my potential_1H is situated by something_2H).]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Compare a sovereign religion to an infrasovereign institution that refuses to seek sovereign power.

For example, consider a health-related business devoted to (what it calls) “smart choices’”.

This business tries to covert the free person into a character who, either does not smoke tobacco products, or smokes responsibly.]

[The subjective impact of the (infra)sovereign religious zealot is very different.

The imposition validates the object^org plus the righteousness that supports it.

The imposer feels spiritually superior to the subject.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[What is the subjective impact when a sovereign imposes an object^organization?

The subject loses responsibility and freedom.

The subject gains in words & bondage.]

[What does it mean for sovereign power to impose an object that brings the subject into organization.

The imposition forcibly reduces both the responsibilities and the freedoms of the subject.

What does the subject gain from this exchange?

Some would argue that everyone (the collective) gains by the good inherent in the object (such as a reduction in health care costs, greater health benefits, and so on, all deriving from the cessation of cigarette smoking).

That argument, however, merely re-asserts the intention of the pro-object. It ignores the subjective impact on the individual.]