Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 QF

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.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 QD

[The me1a who is capable of imposing costs and regulations on subjects2a is also capable of dehumanizing others3a.

The imposer’s I, seat of choice3b, situates the normal context of the mirror of the world3a as ”his” own3b. The imposer is courtier to the king.

The imposer imagines that “he” both owns and is owned by the mirror of the world.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 QB

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[I want to examine the perversity of the imposer

An imposer is a person who joins the sovereigninfra in order to impose ‘the object that brings subjects into organization onto the subjects of the realm’.

What is ‘the something2a’ that this person chooses?

Let’s say, with the tobacco example, ‘something2a’ is ‘really expensive cigarettes that are hard to get’. So this person lobbies for increased transaction costs (taxes, restrictions on use, and so on).]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 PW

[In the specific case of the use of tobacco products, the imposer’s stance makes sense. Clinical observations support the imposer’s narrow focus.

However, the narrow focus fails to take into account the point of view of the subject.

The imposer cannot appreciate the motive for smoking in the first place.

Because of this, “she” bans the development of less harmful substitutes. The so-called “electronic cigarette” was not developed in the USA.


Regulators. Imposers.

How stupid is that?]