[What I want on the basis of reason2V conflicts with what used to make me happy2H.
This contradiction is contextualized by I, seat of choice3V.
Since I, seat of choice3V is attuned to reason, a true conversion may occur.
I, seat of choice3V may begin to influence my desire1H.
True conversion increases responsibility and freedom.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[How would true conversion work in this example?
The health claims in the mirror of the world3H are rational. They contrast with what I desire1H. Yet, they adhere to my choice2V, because value1V is rational. As a result, I can envision my not smoking3V addressing a potential value1V, even though my habit2H continues to light up.
My choice2V to light up may come from the potential of something itself. I may value a ritual halt to negative thought sequences1V.
Lighting up originally connected to a potential inherent in me1a (in the interscoping form) and still does, but not so exclusively.
I am becoming more reasonable1V.]
[If a sovereign power forbids me from smoking tobacco cigarettes, then my responsibilities and my freedom decrease.
My ‘I, seat of choice3V’ is overthrown. My ‘mirror of the world3H’ narrows.
My entire heart grows smaller.
The forced cessation of smoking constitutes a pathetic parody of responsibility and freedom.
It increases words and bondage.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Sovereign intervention in the markets produces forced conversions to a religioninfrasov.
The citizen’s behavior becomes more formalized and less dependent on freedom. Personal responsibility diminishes. The whole person becomes of a slave to the mirror of the world3H.]
[For the Progressive, the potential of the mandated healthy lifestyle outweighs the social costs of forced conversion.
Why?
The costs of compliance accrue to the subjects.
The benefits of imposition accrue to the elites.
What benefit does the elite accrue?
Objectsorg emerge from and situation the possibility of righteousness.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What does my heart2 see in I, seat of choice3V?
My heart2 registers that my choice2V has been limited. My heart2 must realize only one something2H that I may choose1V. There is desire underlying my freedom.
I, seat of choice3V, has been dethroned.
I must submit to what the religioninfrasov has chosen for me.]
[Through market interventions, brute force and public humiliation, the sovereign takes responsibility for my smoking habit. The sovereign thwarts my freedom.]
[What does my heart see in the mirror of the world3H?
My heart sees the romantic view of brotherly smoking diminished.
My heart finds rational arguments against smoking tobacco products.
My heart sees smokers demonized.
Rational arguments may not be sufficient for attaining the organizational objectives of the anti-smoking lobby, even though the health argument can easily be understood. Demonization does the trick.]
[If cigarettes2H increase in price, decrease in availability and otherwise come under the mandates of a sovereign, then my choices2V are correspondingly limited.
Even if I maintain the same desire1H for cigarettes2H, the sovereign takes my power to choose3V from me by mandating a healthy lifestyle.]
