[What happens if the modest proposal is never considered?
The federal government has already established a sovereign religion. This religion lays words (obligations) upon the people in the name of a multitude of organizational objectives.
They have maintained transfer payments through shady accounting. They borrow 4 dollars for every 10 they spend.
The religion of big government (il)liberalism is a false religion.]
[What happens if this modest proposal is adopted?
All citizens (and non-citizens) would experience greater responsibility and freedom.
The nation would flourish.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
[Here is a modest proposal.
Everyone in the nation should pay a 25% income tax.
5% goes to the federal government for civil and criminal courts plus defense.
The remaining 20% must go to institutions within the person’s state.
These institutions may include churches, charities, plus any other non-profit organizations designated by each particular state.
Let the people put their money where their mouths are.
Let their choices and amounts be published on the internet.
All other federal transfer programs should cease within 10 years.
All monies held in special accounts for particular purposes (for example, so-called trust funds, which are all empty) should be returned to the individuals who paid them.]
[Donating to my church is my responsibility. It is my obligation. It is a pathway to life.
Nobody in my church would buy the line that my acquaintance was disabled.
Only a bureaucrat would buy the line, with other people’s money.]
[Responsibility3(2 implies direct and indirect reciprocity
These are consistent with freedom2(1)).
Paying taxes goes with responsibility.
Receiving the taxes of others goes with political promises (words).
State-enforced transfer payments constitute pathways to a dying heart.
A nation is divided.]
[Words3(2 impose on others.
Words3(2 are not inconsistent with free choice.
Words3(2 demand exchanges without reciprocity.
Words3(2 are co-opposed to bondage2(1)).]
[Clearly, her words were intended to indicate her miserable condition.
Her words also conveyed that she was not responsible for her situation.
Social Security is free to compensate her for her “disability”.
If I were to criticize her, I would be a bad person.
I would be accused of thinkanti-helping_disabled_persons.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
[Here is an example:
Recently, a 50 year old acquaintance said, “Look at my hands. I can’t do work. I am entitled to Social Security Disability.”
Then, she got into her SUV to drive to a party to play bridge.]
[Obligations3(2 put ‘the potentials inherent in me1’ into context.
It makes a difference whether those obligations3(2 are responsibilities3(2 or words3(2.]
[In the language of modernism, there is no difference between responsibility and words. Both create obligations.
In the language of postmodern scholasticism, they are mutually exclusive.]
