Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Welfare and other transfer payments are particularly deceptive.
When does getting something for free (one of the ways that the government attains its objectsorganization) sound like an “responsibility”?
Yet, it imposes the unavoidable: The recipient must vote for the Party of Larger Government.
In order to do that, the recipient justifies “himself” through state propaganda.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Laws are written in words. These words impose the unavoidable on others.
Why do legislatures exempt themselves from their own legislation?]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Every objectorganization boils down to either words or responsibility.
Responsibility builds character.
Words build political alliances.
The self-anointed speak words of power and righteousness in their pursuit of sovereign power.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[The imposition of the sovereign proceeds first, in words, then second, in unavoidable obligations.
Is it hard to see that words convey obligations?
I may use words in order to avoid obligations for me. But does that not amount to imposing the unavoidable on you?
Unlike responsibility, words have winners and losers, just like politics]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Obligations tend to be unavoidable.
Responsibilities tend to be character building.
Words tend to be deceptive.]
[In postmodern scholasticism, the words “obligation” and “responsibility” should be placed back into the following configuration:
In general, obligations3a(2a are co-opposed to exercises of the heart2a(1a).
(This holds even though the heart2 does not appear in the interscoping forms.)
‘Responsibility3a(2a’ is opposed to ‘freedom2a(1a)’.
‘Words3a(2a’ are co-opposed to ‘bondage2a(1a)’.
‘Responsibility3a(2a’ is opposed to ‘words3a(2a’.
‘Freedom2a(1a)’ is opposed to ‘bondage2a(1a)’.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[Obligation and responsibility are two words do not seem that much different in our modern lexicon.
They have been rendered equivalent due to the modern opposition of responsibility versus freedom.]
[It does not matter whether the illuminated something2a is free (that is, presented without cost) or prohibited (that is, presented at enormous cost), the potential inherent in me1a changes as I adapt to sovereign impositions. My potential is diminished.]
[IF the mirror of the world3a brings something2a into relation with the potential in me to be the person that the mirror of the world says I am1a,
THEN words3a(2a are co-opposed to bondage2a(1a)).]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[IF the mirror of the world3a illuminates something2a that belongs to the potential inherent in me1a,
THEN responsibility3a(2a is co-opposed to freedom2a(1a)).]
