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


via wikipedia:

Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.

The term arises from the unattested Vulgar Latin’s *superanus, (itself derived form of Latin super – “over”) meaning “chief”, “ruler”


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..


advancing human sovereignty – by Daniel Schmachtenberger – via Daniel Thorson @dthorson when i asked him what he meant by sovereignty here:

@dthorson: I predict we will soon see the rise of emergent self-governing collectives organized around shared problems or purpose. To participate in these collectives will require a high degree of sovereignty.

maybe just curiosity  ie: cure ios city

am thinking that would save a ton of energy.. by creating diff collectives..


Sovereignty relates to the capacity for and demonstration of good (omni-positive) choice-making.

We can define sovereignty more formally as the product of sentience (one’s ability to sense the world), intelligence (one’s ability to make sense of the world), and agency (one’s ability to act on and in the world).

then @dthorson rt’d this tweet on individual sovereignty

@dthorson #RiffingDefinitionsForSharedSensemakingV1

To have individual sovereignty is to have a clear sense of your self, values, purpose, and your place in universe; To feel ”anchored”in your psyche deeply; to be in the world but not of; to be engaged in messy world with boundaries.

Original Tweet:

so.. what if with that/those definition\s.. curiosity is what creates/sustains sovereignty.. what if that’s why we’re missing it.. by not trusting/facilitating individual daily curiosity..

@dthorson: Ah! I think I’m getting you now. Yes, I think curiosity is a big part of what leads to sovereignty. I personally prefer ‘eros’ as a term for what I imagine you’re pointing to.

In that sense sovereignty is an emergent property of our deep love affair with life.


thorson curiosity law

sovereignty ness



while reading bits from Pierre Dardot’s common on rev in 21:

The pandemic as political trial: the case for a global commons | ROAR Magazine
(excellent piece, strongly recommended)
with link:
Original Tweet:

Is the public service indissolubly linked to state sovereignty? This question deserves particularly careful consideration because it is one of the central arguments deployed by the proponents of state sovereignty.

Let us begin by examining the very nature of state sovereignty. Etymologically, sovereignty means “superiority” (from the Latin superanus), but superiority in regard to what? In brief, it is superiority in regard to any laws or obligations that threaten to limit the power of the state, both in its relation to other states and in relation to its own citizens. The sovereign state places itself above any commitments or obligations, which it is then free to constrict or revoke as it pleases. But as a public figure, the state can only act through its representatives, who are all supposed to embody the continuity of the state over and above the daily exercise of their specific governmental functions.

The superiority of the state therefore effectively means the superiority of its representatives over the laws or obligations that impinge upon them.

“One and Indivisible Republic” — an expression that, once again, references the sacrosanct principle of state sovereignty. Ultimately, expressions such as these are little more than alibis that allow state representatives to exempt themselves from any obligation that might legitimate citizen control over the state.

sovereignty et al

It is important to keep this last point in mind, for it is crucial in terms of understanding the public character of the so-called “public” service. The precise meaning of the word “public” demands our full attention here, because it is too rarely recognized that the concept of “public” is absolutely irreducible to the “state.” The term “publicum” designates not merely the state administration, but the entire community as constituted by all citizens: public services are not state services, in the sense that the state can dispense these services as it pleases, nor are they merely an extension of the state: they are public in the sense that they exist “in the service of the public.” It is in this sense that they constitute a positive obligation of the state toward its citizens.

Public services, in other words, are owed by the state — and its governors — to the governed. They are nothing like a favor that the state generously extends toward the governed, despite the negative connotations years of liberal polemics have imposed upon the phrase “the welfare state.” .. The public service is a mechanism by which the governors become the servants of the governed.

This is why the public service is a principle of social solidarity, one which is imposed on all, and not a principle of sovereignty, inasmuch as the latter is incompatible with the very idea of public responsibility.

This conception of the public service has largely been suppressed by the fiction of state sovereignty

public ness


from david graeber‘s utopia of rules


this possibility even threads our language. why for ie is a building referred to as real property or real estate.. the real in this usage is not derived from latin res or thing: it’s from spanish real, meaning ‘royal’ .. ‘belonging to the king’.. all land win a sovereign territory ultimately belongs to the sovereign – legally this is still the case.. this is why the state had the right to impose its regs

and even more so.. from 88* above – on assuming people are org’d by market, hierarchy, command.. any form of m\a\p

but sovereignty ultimately comes down to a monopoly on what is euphemistically referred to as ‘force’.. that is, violence..


giorgio agamben argued that from the perspective of sovereign power something is alive because you can kill it, so property  is ‘real’ because the state has the right to impose its regs



we are used to speaking of ‘the state’ as a single entity but actually, i think, modern states are better seen as the confluence of 3 diff elements.. i will call these sovereignty, admin, and politics..

1\sovereign state – ruler claims monopoly over the legit use of violence w/in a given territory


the reader will remember sovereignty was one of the 3 principles – along w admin and politics – that ultimately came together in our current notion of ‘the state’.. the term ‘sovereignty’ is mostly used in political theory nowadays as a synonym for ‘independence’ or ‘autonomy’ – the right of a govt to do wha tit likes w/in its own borders – but it originally emerged from very specific european debated about the power of kings.. basically, the question was: is it possible to say that the supreme ruler of a kingdom is in any sense bound by its laws?

sovereignty – to make rules up as you go along.

rules are safe. game-like behavior seen as transparent/predictable – so seen as freedom.

on language – grammar was invented after language.. but then we use it even as people’s languages morph (as they should) to say they are ie: speaking incorrectly.


sovereignty in this sense is ultimately identical to play as the generative principle that produces games; but if so, it is also play in its most terrifying, cosmic form..

again.. matters which direction it goes (for good/aliveness.. bad/suffocating ness) ..

we keep not letting go enough.. so we perpetuate/assume tragedy of the non common ness

and we assume rules are safe.. (feeing our obsession w safety)..  and so in our coping ness.. game-like behavior is seen as transparent/predictable (false security) – so seen as freedom.

sovereignty as play in its most top down terrifying form.. so.. not legit play ie: gray play law (never terrifying/top-down.. can always quit)


from michael hardt and antonio negri‘s multitude:

(lots but just adding this):


the two sided nature of sovereignty makes clear.. the limited utility of violence and force in political rule.. military force can be useful for conquest and short term control, but force alone cannot achieve stale rule/sovereignty.. military force is in face.. because it is so one sided.. the weakest form of power;it is hard but brittle.. sovereignty also requires the consent of the ruled.. in addition to force, the sovereign power must exert hegemony over its subjects, generating in the not only fear but also reverence, dedication, and obedience thru a form of power that is soft and supple.. the sovereign power must constantly be able to negotiate the relationship w the ruled..



the concept of exploitation itself might serve to summarize the contradiction at the heart of the capitalist relationship of rule: workers are subordinated under the command of the capitalist, and a portion of the wealth they produce is stolen from them. and yet they are not powerless victims.. they are in fact, extremely powerful, because they are the source of wealth..


since sovereignty is a relationship, then such acts for refusal are indeed a real threat..w/o the active participation of the subordinated, sovereignty crumbles

but that participation is always ie: voluntary compliance et al..