becoming a buzz word these days.. one that unsettles me..

adding page because of this in hardt and negri‘s assembly:


property and sovereignty .. are intimately mixed in the twinned operations of possession and exclusion..

the need to defend id and its privileges.. sometimes eclipses all other goals..  id and property thus have a double relation in right wing populisms: id serves as a privileged means to property and also as a form of property itself.. which promises to maintain or restore the hierarchies of the social order


act 4:32: and the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common

one ness.. common ing


legal projects to reform property .. have had beneficial effects but now we need finally to take the leap beyond..

it is becoming increasingly clear.. that property can and must be stripped of its sovereign character and transformed into the common.

the common is defined first, then, in contrast to property .. it is not a new form of property but rather non property.. that is, a fundamentally diff means of organizing the use and management of wealth..  the common designates an equal and open structure for access to wealth together w democratic mechs of decision making..

how about 2 convos.. to facil have/need ness (esp because unless we’re doing daily self-talk/detox.. we’re faciling fake wants.. no where near true needs/desires.. completely changes what it means to make decisions)

hardt/negri property law


an absolute mustread, one of the best articles on the potential impacts of the blockchain that I have seen: Future of Sovereignty in a Blockchain World – P2P Foundation

Original Tweet:

from sarah and ben manksi:

“The building of the blockchain is predicted to harken the end of the con-temporary sovereign order. Some go further to claim that as a powerful decentering technology, blockchain contests the continued functioning of world capitalism. Are such claims merited? In this paper we consider sovereignty and blockchain technology theoretically, posing possible futures for sovereignty in a blockchain world. These possibilities include various forms of individual, popular, technological, corporate, and techno-totalitarian state sovereignty. We identify seven structural tendencies of blockchain technology and give examples as to how these have manifested in the construction of new forms of sovereignty. We conclude that the future of sovereignty in a blockchain world will be articulated in the conjuncture of social struggle and technological agency and we call for a stronger alliance between technologists and democrats.” (

why sovereignty?

Five Possible Blockchain Futures

1\ Individual Sovereignty – Evidence is widespread and multiplying of efforts by technologists to use blockchain technology to *challenge existing hierarchical institutional forms with peer-to-peer networks. It seems questionable, however, whether large numbers of people — as citizens, consumers, producers, etc. — **will embrace a total shift from regulatory oversight toward a disaggregated society of autonomous individuals picking and choosing between peer-to-peer legal codes of arbitration and enforcement of agreements.”

*challenge hierarchy.. but that includes sovereignty.. **they will if it’s equitable.. meaning it’s for 100% of humanity.. and.. there’s at a least an initial/temporary means to ground that chaos.. until we get back to an undisturbed ecosystem..

2\ Popular Sovereignty – Blockchain for Change has developed Fummi, an application that uses blockchain’s immutability and globality to store digital identities for those lacking permanent homes (Schiller 2017). 

what if id and permanence.. are distractions/disturbances to ecosystem..

..And emerging on the horizon are a series of next generation technology platforms designed to bypass bottlenecks and inequalities contained within current block-chain architectures; the most notable of these is Holochain (Brock and Harris-Braun 2017).W

still see distractions/disturbances to ecosystem.. in holochain et al

3\ Technological Sovereignty – Blockchain coders enjoy a comparative advantage over lay users because in calibrating blockchain over multiple prototype iterations, coders establish a lasting frame of reference through which they *imagine alternatives and make design choices. This agency can be used toward different ends—as a means of resistance to capitalism, or as a means to personal profit, or as path to power consolidation.

i don’t see *that happening anywhere yet.. none of us seems to be able to let go of things.. that are dangerously.. distractions/disturbances to ecosystem..(ie: resistance, profit, power.. all disturbances of ecosystem.. no matter how you reimagine them)

..At least one tendency of blockchain technology — future focus — may be leading toward a sovereignty not of technologists but of the technology itself. The development of SASRA could enable the creation of blockchain businesses that run themselves with distributed and decentralized profits, management, and services. These independent DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations), would automatically leverage manifold smart contracts, thereby eliminating the lawyers, accountants and bureaucrats whose job it is to confirm the trustworthiness and legal standing of contracts between

business, management, smart contract, lawyers, accountants, bureaucrats.. all disturbances to ecosystem..

too much.. let go

4\ Corporate Sovereignty – Where the environ-mental economics literature describes ‘technology forcing’ as technological devel-opment driven by regulatory pressure, we see a similar process underway in the cor-poratization of blockchain toward the ends of corporate sovereignty.

5\ Techno-totalitarian State Sovereignty – These expanded capacities are making possible the emergence of new technologi-cal totalitarian forms of state sovereignty. ..Altogether, recent history gives us reason to expect that state interventions into the development of blockchain technology are more likely to lead in a totalitarian rather than democratizing direction.”


The structures of blockchain technology, we have found, tend more toward more distributed, democratized, and technologized sov-ereignties.


Add in the strong desire for the kind of world society that cooperatives are programming into their blockchain applications that was articulated in the global democracy wave of 2008-2014, and we see that a rising of global popular sovereignty may not be so improbable after all.”

is that our desire..?

hope not


sovereignty on p2p site:

Sarah and Ben Manksi:

“The word ‘sovereign’ originally meant ‘reigns’ from ‘above’. To be sovereign was to wield ‘supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority’ (Blackstone 1976; Lubert 2010) and to be free of responsibility for one’s acts (Bodin 1962; Derrida 2011)…Whether sovereignty has always functioned in a very similar way is debated and alternative descriptions of sovereign power have been introduced to describe the functioning of a global system (Arrighi et al. 1989; Robinson 2014), empire (Hardt and Negri 2001; Adams and Steinmetz 2015), societal institutions (Sci-ulli 1992, Teubner 2012), discursive fields (Steinmetz 2016; Blokker 2017) and domination and daily life (Agamben 1998; Steinberg 2016); yet sovereignty’s continued relevance seems obvious. We find sovereignty appearing in contempo-rary discourse in alternative forms as an idealized legal concept with legitimat-ing effect, or an emergent quality of structural power, or as a terrain of struggle raised up by challenging claims. We are informed by each of these in constructing our definition: by sovereignty we mean the receiving of a general recognition of exclusive domain and consequent possession of the capacity to establish the rules of conduct within a particular field of action.” (

not sure we need that.. rules of conduct… if we focus on an undisturbed ecosystem via2 convos.. as infra (call that rules of conduct if you like.. 3 and 30 everyday.. trusting us for the rest)


“Sovereignty, in its strictest definition is the supreme authority within a territory.

so you could say.. each individual is sovereign.. which i think a lot of people are saying.. but i think that (and the territory and id and property that comes along w it) distracts and disturbs an undisturbed ecosystem..


jordan greenhall seems to talk about sovereignty a lot.. does this summarize it for him..? i don’t know – from this 44 min convo []

39 min – what we’re describing.. can be described as the characteristics of sovereignty

ugh.. ie: sovereignty

sovereignty is oblique.. in order to achieve sovereignty one *must use these particular capacities in the domain that you’re considering

*must ness.. all i hear is

it is becoming increasingly clear.. that property can and must be stripped of itssovereign character and transformed into the common. sovereignty

*sovereignty is the measure of a relationship between one’s capacity and the conditions that one is in..

i see *measuring as a disruption to (or symptom of) an undisturbed ecosystem

40 min – sovereignty.. i can keep doing it w/o losing my ability to keep doing it.. from one domain of juggling to another (juggling while riding) i feel like there’s a distinction between sovereignty and mastery

41 min – movement from skill ful ness to art ful ness has to do w that transition into embodiment’ve reached an ability in the first 4 (he gave 6 characteristics of learning to learn) that your *ability to access this level (#5) of insight.. has moved into a space of being easy and enduring larger and larger challenges..

and see..i think we embodiment comes first.. i think it’s all art.. diff degrees of art.. of us

i’m wondering if we’re back to the superficial being the complicated..

42 min – so what i can say now is that your sovereignty.. that artful ness.. your sovereignty in this particular domain.. has actually expanded.. your ability to do has expanded..

and mastery .. when you’re actually able to use this capacity to build further capacity under duress under harder domains

sounds like antifragility.. which i believe we already have – well – in our natural state – obviously not most of us (intoxicateds) today

so the arch from skillfulness to artfulness to mastery.. really lives very much on this learning loop.. sovereignty comes at it obliquely .. from the pov of .. in a given circumstance/moment.. what is the relationship between your capacity and the environ you’re in .. so .. if you have achieved mastery.. then also you will be sovereign.. at the level of your mastery

ie: mastery and so sovereignty in subdomain of juggling.. sovereignty is ability with which you are in.. will use my mastery (many dimensions) in that process

(interviewer): so to summarize.. mastery is about skillfulness and understanding of certain domain.. and sovereignty is ability to make choices in response to what’s happening..

yes.. very nice..