Does Individual Sovereignty Pre-empt Abusive Government?
By Joe Jarvis - October 17, 2017

Once you accept that you are not sovereign, it is just a matter of maneuvering for governments to do whatever they want.

They don’t play by any rules. But they force you to follow them. Some governments do this by blunt force. Other governments do it by controlling the media narrative. Still, others twist the law to fit their purposes and appear legitimate. Most use a combination of tactics to keep people compliant.

In America, governments and corporations like to pretend there is some sort of objective law. They spend time in legislatures and courts determining what will pass as legal and what will not. But it is basically just a silly dance. They are trying different combinations to unlock the “do whatever the hell they want” box.

Certain dance moves are preferred by the populous, who are easily entranced. Money to pay lawyers and lobbyists helps to sell as legitimate. And political connections help too. But for the everyday citizen or small business owner, the deck is stacked against you.

For instance, the Constitution is pretty clear about citizens being allowed to own guns, as well as run businesses. Supposedly laws must be applied evenly.

But San Francisco wants to ban gun stores. They can’t just go and ban gun stores. They have to be clever.

So they think up an ordinance. Somehow local laws can stomp all over people’s property rights–citizens have accepted that. They make a local code that says gun stores cannot operate with 500 feet of a school, liquor store, bar, or residential district.

They have performed a dance that San Franciscans accept. It seems to make sense–guns don’t seem to mix well with alcohol, or children.

Yet now, all San Francisco has to do is make sure one of those things occurs at least every 1,000 feet, and they have effectively banned gun stores.

They can make anything they want a residential district. There is probably already a bar or liquor store every 1,000 feet. And an appeals court just upheld the ban, saying the second amendment does not guarantee gun store owners have the right to locate anywhere they wish.

Do any of us have a right to locate anywhere we wish? Or must everything be approved of by the government? Couldn’t this argument also be used for gun owners? Or for that matter, couldn’t this argument be used for any of our rights?

The arbitrariness of laws is what gives rise to corruption and discrimination. This is the same philosophy that allows certain corporations to get special subsidies and tax breaks. This is the underlying logic behind government enforced racial segregation.

If the government gets to slice up the population and decide who will get to exercise what rights and where, then there are no rights. If the government can arbitrarily make special rules for segments of society, then there is no objective rule of law.

So private property doesn’t really exist, does it? Local governments can restrict what you can do with the land, and require permits if you want to move a pebble. And then they charge you yearly rent they call property taxes.

If we accept that they have this control over us, what’s the use of complaining about this particular law or that particular law? It is all based on whims, and our preferences just relate to what is best for us. The corporations’ and politicians’ preferences relate to what is best for them.

Guess whose benefit is going to win?

Rejecting any authority over our lives pre-empts the idea that we can be arbitrarily controlled by this little ordinance or that little code. Those “little things” are what open the door to an unequal society. It is what allows governments to put in the fix for corporations and cronies.

That being said, it is easy enough to move out of San Francisco and choose a better place. The real problem comes when rules are enforced on such a large scale that there is hardly any alternatives to choose from.

So why continue the dance? Why make San Francisco go to court to defend their terrible ordinances? Why not just let local jurisdictions do what they want to do?

If people see a benefit to living in such close quarters, and voluntarily decide to submit to a local government, so be it. I would prefer to let cities and towns be as draconian as they wish if it meant not allowing a bigger government to come down in support of them.

When it comes to living in such close quarters, there are obviously going to be more rules in order to prevent clashes. A sovereign individual could accept that, and voluntarily suppress some of his own interests for whatever benefit he sees in living there.

The option would always exist to go somewhere without other people, and therefore not have to compromise your way of life. This too would have benefits and detriments a sovereign individual could weigh.

People who think and act sovereign will allow the real innovation to occur. Their lives are experiments in how to be free, and not accept arbitrary and unlimited authority from above. And the best part is, they are already operating, testing limits, and trying new styles of living.

Tell me in the comments how sovereign you think it is possible to be in this day and age.


You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with: ,
  • georgesilver

    I like to think of myself as an individual. I also think of myself as opportunist. I do not stick to any thought system. I am a chameleon. I’ll wear the uniform of who-so-ever is in power to benefit my own ends. I pretend to be the person they want me to be. My options are always open. I’m adaptable. Selfishness is good altruism is bad.
    I treat everyone in the same way as though they had the same ‘ideals’. I would never harm or trick another individual unless it was a me or them scenario. I dislike all politicians and central bankers.
    I love to argue against propaganda that the mainstream dishes up… it’s fun. I like to argue against the propaganda that the hugely backed Daily Bell pumps out purely because it likes it’s readers to think it’s a tiny beacon of light when in fact it’s just part of a huge conglomerate of wealthy backers pushing their own subtle agenda.

  • All governments play by their own rules. So the writers comment of they play by no rules is not even close to accurate. It would be better said that they make their own rules that they play by with bogus laws and courts and other control mechanisms like PRAVDA/MSM, the deep state apparatus, the corporatocracy that has been created and of course the false political paradigms that are spoon fed to the populace.

    If you can create any false paradigm or false narrative it is easy to control the populace and that is exactly what we live under here in USA today ! Nothing new at all, just that people are only beginning to see it all for the many crimes that take place and control mechanisms created.

    • Don Duncan

      Brute force knows no rules. The “rule of law” or “law” is a myth perpetrated to gain voluntary compliance, self-enslavement.

  • Samarami

    “…Once you accept that you are not sovereign, it is just a matter of maneuvering for governments to do whatever they want…..Tell me in the comments how sovereign you think it is possible to be in this day and age….”

    Your last sentence is answered by your first.

    If I’m going to be free I’m going to first need to begin to think free and act free. I am a sovereign state. But you’d be astounded at the number of “libertarians” who challenge me vociferously on that score. “…NO, Sam! You are delusional! You cannot be free until ‘we’ end ‘government’…! As long as there is a state you will not be free…!”

    And, I’ll admit — I’m old, with tough, ornery hide not palatable to “…the-powers-that-be…” (I always use quotes with that phrase, because the very use of it hands “power” to those who seek “power”).
    This is a fun time to be alive! Finally — at last — with the rise of the internet and other factors, many ordinary folks are beginning to wiggle out of their serfdom and act and talk liberty and freedom. Slow — here a little and there a little — but wiggle they are doing.
    I intend to be alive to witness the final, agonizing collapse of all states and all “…powers-that-be…” And in the process I shall be free. Now. Here. Today. Where I’m “at”. Sam

    •  You cannot be free until ‘we’ end ‘government’…! As long as there is a state you will not be free…!

      I, too, have encountered the naysayers. My usual response is the following quote:

      “The quest for freedom [is] a highly introspective, personal journey of self-discovery and enlightenment. The eradication of government is not necessary for one to be free. To the contrary, one must first attain freedom in order to be rid of government.” 
      —Tony Sampognaro

      • Samarami

        Excellent quotation. The phenomenon we know of as “government” (“the-state”) is only held in place by those who continue to believe in “government”, or “the-state” (or, for that matter, “the-powers-that-be”). Once everybody ceases “voluntary” compliance, the state ends. Sam

  • jill_friedman

    I do not think it is possible to be sovereign at all in this day and age. At least not unless you’re rich enough to be able to ignore most ‘laws’ and get away with it. For us normal working people, no way! We are not free at all.

    • “If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.” 
      —Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment

    • Col. E. H. R. Green

      With a negative, defeatist attitude like that, one that the statists and sociopaths in your family, neighborhood, schools, etc. conditioned you to assume, you have made yourself your own jailer. You have let them win.

      I recommend that you examine, perhaps for the first time in your life, what underlies that defeatist attitude of yours, and read and take to heart “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” by Etienne de la Boetie. You will discover that your sovereignty is real and your self-liberation has always been within your own reach.

  • mctrnr1951

    Individual sovereignty and voluntary association are in a Death Shrug with the results of the consequences of that abominable fabrication ‘Original Sin’.

    All of mankind is to be surreptitiously and/or forcibly transformed into a single, largely non-voluntary corporation because an irresistible theological impulse lies at the heart of the globalist agenda.

    • Don Duncan

      “…irresistible theological impulse…”? As a child I was not tempted. I used thought, not impulse for the important things. But then I was not superstitious. I loved math/chess.

      I have observed the transfer of the theistic fiction called “Original Sin” into the fiction “Social Contract”. Under this fiction we are all slaves to the group or common good or national security or social welfare. The ruling authority has many names, all abstract and imaginary. The result is denial of individual sovereignty. And I chose my sovereignty, my self responsibility, voluntarism.

      • mctrnr1951

        When … and if … [directed] irresistible theological impulse, a force so communicated as to preEMPT choice, meets immovable objectivists, there will be shrugs.

        A Technocratic Solution to the problem of the “large, unbridgeable chasm” between consent and government; AetherDropping their wet dream global empire to strangers/prospective slaves who won’t consent to living in it.

  • Brady Mosher

    “… are preferred by the populous..” (sp.) try “populace” a proofreader would help. Thanks.

  • Praetor

    They can think they own me, but I will stand and fight for my self ownership. That tells me they really don’t own me. You do live in a world of other sovereigns and there are obligations to those other sovereigns. That does not mean, they or I can own one another, it means we have an obligation to cooperate with one another for mutual benefit, in the pursuit of happiness.

    Unfortunately there are a lot that are owned and they are as big a problem as government.!!!

  • Excerpt from my article, Individual Sovereignty:

    It is YOUR life to live. Free YOURSELF!

    There is an old saying that “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”. The VERY FIRST STEP on the road to freeing one’s self is ATTITUDE.

    If a person thinks like a slave, his own servitude is guaranteed.

    If a person thinks like a free man there are no guarantees, but the first requirement to being free has been accomplished.

    When a person realizes the condition of servitude into which most of us are born and unthinkingly live, when that person deliberately chooses to rid himself of his complacent servility and end the dependence and the slavery, that person has taken the first step. Without that attitude change, no journey on the road to freeing one’s self is possible, no individual freedom can ever be achieved.

    The article has its own discus comments section and there are additional resources after the article.

    • Here is an excerpt from one of those additional resources:

      Freedom comes from within.  It does not come from without.  It does not come from a charismatic leader.  It does not come with a set of instructions….It does not come from being given your freedom only after you prove yourself to your parents, teachers, pastors, or other authority figures.  It does not come from any God who demands obedience before He promises blessings (or threatens curses).  It does not come from delineated rights.  It does not come from The Constitution.  It is you from whom freedom springs.  It is you in whom freedom thrives.  No one gave it to you.  Like Dorothy and her ruby slippers, your way home was with you all the time.”
      ~ B.R. Merrick

  • Bischoff

    For the individual to be sovereign means to have unquestioned ownership of the product of his labor. That means the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, given the present representation in the U,S, Congress, this repeal of the 16th will only be possible through the repeal of the 17th Amendment which given the political environment at this time can only be done by a Convention of State Delegates (Article V Convention)
    As to the sovereignty of the state, it rests entirely on the control and administration of lands within its borders. The counties within a state administer the land use. Fee simple title holders with exclusive rights of usage are charged a rent or property tax. This is the only “tax” needed to fund government at all levels.
    As to municipal government, it is often forgotten that these municipalities are actually municipal corporations, IAW government from the top down which received a charter from the state to deliver services within a specified border and to support this service by collecting a portion of the county property tax based on the county assessed property values.
    As to San Francisco, there exists a unique situation. Here, the City and County borders are the same. It is the City and County of San Francisco. In probably no other county – city relationship are political connections as intertwined as here.
    The corruption between property assessments and political contributions are legendary. This corruption was institutionalized with the passage of Proposition 13 and its consequent change of the California constitution.
    So you want to restore individual sovereignty, get rid of income taxes of any kind, not just on Wages, but also on Capital. Then the only tax to fund government operation is the land value tax. Under the land value tax every citizen pays for the expense of government only once. When commercial fee simple title holders influence the assessment of their real property by failing to use the full value for property tax calculations, the tax burden is shifted to the residential property fee simple title holders.
    Yet, it is a fact that commercial property holders treat property taxes as an expense of doing business in their financial accounting. The residential property holder on the other hand has to go out and earn the money to pay the property tax. It is therefore not difficult to see how the residential property tax payer pays twice, once for the fee simple title he holds and on the other hand for the extra cost of goods and services delivered from commercial properties leased out at “market rates”.
    The difference in money between “market rates” and the less-than-full value calculated commercial property tax, is the money that funds the local politicians.

  • thefinancedude

    lols – Man thinking he is sovereign is the source of his problem…only One is Truly sovereign and all the wo/man act in that Name…(go look up the queen’s acclaimed heritage she uses to rule Earth, cough cough, i mean EXERCISE HER DOMINION) 🙂 if we’re all equal under the law then hmmmm…..

    same thing with ownership…pole flip and trip over the trick that is exclusive use…

    its quite simple for an individual – do you want to master millions of codes or learn how to live the negative, natural law of restraint…the law perfected it in the maxims of equity – all the land-tenants back in the 1500s went to the equity courts and basically shut down the BAR…so the BAR had to find new tricks to keep their game going…it helped that 1492 was an apocalypse year and suddenly america was on the radar 🙂

    Mans law is called positive law…gods law is negative…Man wants to be god, so he authorized himself to take from nature b/c nature is “wasting” its resources and then charges his fellow Man for the privilege of his labor…

    the “they” (thus me/my/self) mindset is the source of the belief that one is somehow indentured servant to another; its more or less just mob actions thinly veiled as demoncracy – we are all One in spirit, in god…their script is in the bible…none of this is new, just takes on a new form (US-A is the new Babylon this time)…we are all given equal potential yet we all choose unequally…its always we…ego drives “they/me” mindset…find your self in “they”…meditate on being a politician as they are…not as your ego wants to think it would be (having never been in those positions and we cast stones)…walk those shoes and break down that negative charge built up inside anchored around those focal points…

    individually speaking “they” leave one alone when one expresses basic logic sprinkled with some maxims and questions…answer questions with questions…learn how to speak without using words other people taught ye…inquire with one’s heart and the truth is revealed – its platitudes i know, but i’ve lived it and can do no less than simply share…

    lastly – there is always a bigger plan than one can see, find peace in those hands b/c we’re all going to need it as we begin the final descent in one manner and the ascent in another…

    in lak’ech!

  • KevanRowlee

    Sharing article to my Facebook wall.

  • jacob

    Definition of GOVERNMENT : governance of the mente (the mind). People acquiesce to big government because they feel helpless. Not so with governing entities small enough for people to not feel helpless. Tyranny thrives by this mechanism.

  • Don Duncan

    Sovereignty is a function of the individual mind, not the time or place (day & age). It began for me with almost no sense of the outside world. I was about 4. I developed my sense of self slowly over many years, by around 8. With this internal awareness of being separate, alone, unique, I began.

    I had no concept that I was “we”. Sovereignty and physical freedom are not the same, as in “stone walls and iron bars do not a prison make”. Limits on my sovereignty are self imposed by defects in my character. I am responsible for them and I can remove them. At 75 I am still doing it.

    Perhaps sovereignty is a process, not a condition.