Summary of text [comment] page 83
[In this postmodern scholastic discussion, freedom2a(1a)) and responsibility3a(2a are co-opposed.
Sovereign decrees often decrease the range of the co-opposition of responsibility and freedom by regulating something2a.
Intervention narrows the range of both responsibility and freedom available to the subject. It brings the subject into words3a(2a and bondage2a(1a)).]
[The interscope presumes that the perspective level applies. Sensible construction works as problem solving. ‘I, seat of choice3b’ connects to ‘the potentials inherent in me1a’.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The situation level nested form for the imposer looks like: this
I, an instrument of the spirit behind the thought experiment3b( my choice to use sovereign power2b( the potential of my choice to impose objectsorganization on subjects recipients1b))]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[With these two examples, the lower level nested form for the imposer looks like:
A thought experiment3a portrays the world2a as a battle between the good poor ones and the evil rich ones.
The battle2a demands that the organizer fix the world1a.]
[In so-called “welfare”, the subject conforms to the words of the sovereign authority’s thought experiment (that providing the transfer payment will achieve greater “equity”).
For the subject, freedom and responsibilities transform into bondage and words.
For the government agent, words and bondage for the subject are perceived as the justified application of an objectorganization onto sovereign subjects.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Freedom2a(1a)) to get welfare payments2a goes with words3a(2a.
The subject’s heart is bound to the words of the criteria.
Lawyers may be required to figure out those words.
So, freedom from want2a(1a) translates into bondage2a(1a)).]
[The subject, who wants something2a, accepts dehumanization from the sovereign religion. The subject considers something2a to be free (without responsibility, especially, without working for it).
Consequently, the subject will arrange “his” circumstances to satisfy the criteria of any welfare agency.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Can we imagine what the criteria must be?
Well, for one, the transaction would never occur in the open market, even one livened by the yeast of diverse Christian factions. For Christians, there is no “welfare” or “entitlements”. There is only “charity”.
Christians fail their mission at the moment when charity becomes dehumanizing.]
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.
Something2a is making funds available according to certain criteria for subjects2a.
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.]
