Beyond Democracies, Republics, and the Ways of Power: 9/11 and the Idea of Sovereignty

Whatever one’s beliefs about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, or why they did what they did, or how they did what they did, there is overwhelming evidence to demonstrate the completely vacuous character of the “official” story concerning 9/11 that was developed through, among other sources: The 9/11 Report edited by Philip Zelikow and chaired by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton; The Pentagon Building Performance Report, by Paul Mlakar and Donald Dusenberry, as well as various allegedly technical reports released by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) dealing – supposedly – with the destruction of the twin towers and Building 7 that were supervised by Shyam Sunder.  I have written two books that are critical of the “official” story (The Essence of September 11^th, 2^nd edition and Framing 9/11), and, as well, there are an array of other good presentations that rigorously explore the many problems that are inherent in the “official” story (for example, but not limited to: any number of books by David Ray Griffin; various mixed-media presentations by ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ featuring, among others, Richard Gage; Where did the Towers Go by Judy Wood; an array of mixed-media presentations by Pilots for 9/11 Truth: 9/11 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley, and several investigations conducted by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis including The North Side Flyover).

Many people – on all sides of the issue – have been consumed with the: ‘who’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ of the events on 9/11, but some twelve years later those questions are not foremost on my mind. Instead, I am concerned with what the events of 9/11 have set in motion with respect to the systematic stripping of rights, freedoms, and sovereignty that occurred in relation to American citizens, not to mention the millions of individuals who were adversely affected elsewhere in the world as a result of 9/11.

Americans have been swindled out of sovereignty by an array of scoundrels both known and unknown. America has become a failed nation because none of its essential institutions -- such as the three branches of federal government, the military, the Federal Reserve Bank along with the banking system in general, the media, and academia -- have, for the most part, done anything to prevent tyranny, oppression, and injustice from conducting their blitzkrieg of Americans.

While the events of 9/11 helped pave the road to such dissolution, the problem actually began more than 225 years ago with the coup d’état that was set in motion in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia when a group of people -- sometimes referred to as the ‘Founding Fathers’ or ‘Framers’ -- decided to swindle Americans out of the opportunity to work toward establishing something that was far better than a republic or a democracy. Those individuals helped to establish a republic, and, unfortunately, almost from the very beginning, they began to betray the idea of a republic by failing to live in accordance with the moral principles of republicanism that are at the heart of the form of governance that was manipulated into existence through the process of ratification by the ‘Founding Fathers’.

From there, things went from bad to worse. The so-called ‘Founding Fathers’  --especially James Madison who came up with the Virginia Plan that served as the template for the Constitution – were appalled by the idea of democracy because, among other things, such a form of government often tended to oppress minorities in order to appease majorities who often tended to operate out of arbitrary, volatile perspectives. Indeed, it is important to understand that the mode of government known as a republic is not at all synonymous with the notion of a democracy … representative or otherwise.

However, by the mid-to-late 1790s, democracy had overrun republicanism as the form of governance that became dominant in America, and one of the signs of this transition was the formation of political parties … something that was actually inconsistent with the moral principles of republicanism (enshrined in Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution) that required people in government to be impartial, objective, and unbiased in their deliberations and, therefore, indicates that belonging to a political party constitutes a conflict of interest with the moral duties of someone in government as far as the political philosophy of republicanism is concerned. The founding fathers considered such a political transformation to mark the devolution of governance in America, and, indeed, toward the end of his life, Jefferson, among others, was totally disillusioned with, and bitter toward, the change in political orientation that had taken place in the United States.

The Anaconda Principle refers to the way in which governments engage in a process of increasingly and progressively squeezing the political, emotional, spiritual, social, educational, economic, and physical life out of citizens over a period of time. Each time the citizenry exhales in relief from having survived some arbitrary, unjustified, problematic exercise in public policy that was imposed on those citizens by government, the coils of power are wrapped even more tightly about the people through the next round of arbitrary and unjustified policies that are leashed upon the people.

Since 9/11, we have witnessed the introduction of: The Patriot Act (2001 – plus its reauthorization in 2005 that made many of its provisions permanent), The John Warner Authorization Act (2006), the Military Commissions Act (2006), as well as the National Defense Authorization Acts of 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. In addition, there have been a slew of Executive Orders (10990, 10995, 10997, 10998, 10999, 11000, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005, 11921, and more) that authorize the government to control virtually every aspect of American society whenever the government deems this to be appropriate.

The Anaconda Principle is being applied ever more rigorously and persistently to the American people. In the process whatever constructive elements of republicanism and democracy that still were hanging on for dear life after several hundred years of abuse have been squeezed from political existence.

The following set of principles outline a possible social/political framework of self-governance that goes beyond the possibilities inherent in tyrannies, republics, and democracies. The time for change is upon us, and I believe that such change – monumental though it might be – can be accomplished peacefully and without violence.

I invite you to reflect on the principles of sovereignty that are briefly noted below. Then, I invite you to reflect on the form of governance in existence today and compare it with the principles of sovereignty.

Sovereignty does not require force. It requires illumination of one’s understanding, and when understood, sovereignty has a natural appeal to human beings.

I believe there is a significant difference between, on the one hand, the ways of republicanism, democracy or power and, on the other hand, the way of sovereignty. The choice is yours to make.

------   

The following principles are in response to a question that someone asked me recently – namely, “What is sovereignty?”

(1) Sovereignty is indigenous to, and inherent in, the potential of human beings. It is not derived from society or governments but, in fact, exists prior to the formation of society and governments.

(2) Sovereignty is the right to realize essential identity and constructive potential in ways that are free from techniques of undue influence (which seek to push or pull individuals in directions that are antithetical to the realization of sovereignty) and in ways that do not infringe on the like rights of others.

(3) Sovereignty is the right to push back the horizons of ignorance concerning the nature of reality.

(4) Sovereignty encompasses the right to the quality of food, shelter, clothing, education, and medical care that are minimally necessary to realize identity and constructive potential through the process of pushing back the horizons of ignorance.

(5) Sovereignty is rooted in the duties of care that are owed to others to ensure that those sovereignty rights are established, protected, and nurtured.

(6) Sovereignty is the right to choose how to engage the dynamics of: ‘neither control, nor be controlled.’

(7)  Sovereignty entails establishing local councils that constructively promote and develop principles of sovereignty and if necessary such councils would help mediate disputes that arise along the boundary dynamics involving the principle of: neither control nor be controlled. The composition, selection, and nature of the council would be similar to that of a grand jury. In other words, the members would not be elected but chosen through a random process and, then, subject to a vetting process to determine the suitability of a given individual for taking on the responsibilities of such a council, much like prospective jurors go through a voir dire process. In addition, the length of service would be for a limited time (6 months to a year) before new members would be selected in some random manner and, then, vetted as previously indicated. Like a grand jury, the members of the council would be empowered to investigate whatever issues and problems seem relevant, but, unlike a grand jury, such a council would have the authority to research issues, subpoena witnesses, and present their results directly to the community for further deliberation without having to seek the permission of a prosecutor or attorney general.

(8) Sovereignty is the responsibility to work toward collective sovereignty, and this is nothing but individual sovereignty writ large.

(9) Sovereignty is rooted in economic activity that serves the principles of sovereignty, not vice versa. Corporations should be permitted to exist only as temporary charter arrangements devoid of any claims of personhood and they should be designed to serve specific purposes of value to individual and collective sovereignty. Whatever profits accrue from corporate activity should be shared with the communities in which the corporation operates.

(10) The constructive value of money is a function of its role in advancing the     principles of sovereignty for everyone. The destructive value of money is a function of the way it undermines, corrupts, and obstructs the principles of sovereignty. Money acquires its value through the service it provides in relation to the establishment, enhancement, and protection of sovereignty. The money-generating capacity of banks should serve the purposes of sovereignty, both individually and collectively. Banks should be owned and regulated by local communities. Moreover, whatever profits are earned in conjunction with bank activities should be reinvested in the community.

(11) Capital refers primarily to the constructive potential inherent in human beings and only secondarily to financial resources. The flow of capital (in both human and financial terms) should serve the interests of sovereignty, both individually and collectively.

(12) Sovereignty is not a zero-sum game. It is about co-operation, not competition.

(13) Sovereignty is rooted in the acquisition of personal character traits involving: honesty, compassion, charitableness, benevolence, friendship, objectivity, equitability, tolerance, forgiveness, patience, perseverance, nobility, courage, kindness, humility, integrity, independence and judiciousness.

(14) Sovereignty is not imposed from the outside in but is realized from the inside out through struggle by the individual, within the individual, to come to grips with the meaning of: neither control nor be controlled.

(15) Sovereignty is rooted in struggling against: dishonesty, bias, hatred, jealousy, greed, anger, selfishness, intolerance, arrogance, apathy, cowardice, egocentrism, duplicity, exploitation, and cruelty.

(16) Sovereignty is the process of struggling to learn how not to cede one’s moral and intellectual agency to anything but: truth, justice and character in the service of realizing one’s identity, and constructive potential, as well as in the service of assisting others to realize their identity and constructive potential.

(17) Sovereignty can never be defended, protected, or enhanced by diminishing, corrupting, co-opting, or suspending the conditions necessary for the pursuit, practice, and realization of sovereignty. Sovereignty should not be subject to the politics of fear.

(18) Sovereignty is rooted in the principle that no person can represent the sovereign interests of another individual unless the sovereign interests of everybody are equally served at the same time.

(19) The activities and purposes of: governments, nations, institutions, and corporations should always be capable of being demonstrated -- beyond a reasonable doubt – to be the service of the sovereignty of the people, taken both collectively and individually.

(20) Sovereignty is rooted in the principle of de-centralization whenever doing so would serve the interests of sovereignty better than some form of centralization would be able to achieve.

(21) Efficiency and wealth should be measured in terms that enhance the way of sovereignty, not the way of power.

(22) The principles of sovereignty should be rooted in the notion of sustainability, and those principles should not be pursued or realized at the expense of destroying the environment … either in the short term or in the long term.

(23) Sovereignty is rooted in the cautionary principle. In other words, if there is a reasonable doubt about the safety, efficiency, judiciousness, or potential destructive ramifications of a given activity, then that activity should be suspended until such time those doubts have been completely, successfully, and rigorously addressed.

(24) The defense of sovereignty is best served through the co-operation of de-centralized communities of sovereign individuals … with only occasional, limited, and secondary assistance from centralized institutions and groups.

(25) Standing armies do not serve the interests of sovereignty but, rather, serve the interests of the bureaucracies that organize, fund, equip, and direct those standing armies. Being able to defend one’s country and communities from physical attack does not require standing armies but, instead, requires sovereign individuals who understand the value of defending the principles of sovereignty that help a community and country to flourish.

(26) The police should serve and protect both individual, as well as collective, sovereignty. The police should not be the guardians and enforcers of arbitrary laws that are designed to protect centralized governments, corporations, institutions, and other bodies that tend to operate in accordance with the way of power and, therefore, in opposition to the way of sovereignty.

(27) When done correctly, the practice of sovereignty creates a public space or commons that is conducive to the pursuit and realization of the principles of sovereignty by everyone who is willing to struggle toward that end.

(28) Sovereignty is rooted in the principle that the commons – that is, the resources of the Earth, if not the Universe – cannot be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to belong to anyone, and therefore, the commons should be shared, conserved, and protected by all of us (including other species) rather than being treated as private, corporate, or government property.

(29) Whatever forms of private property are considered to be permissible by general consensus, such property should serve the establishment, enhancement, and protection of the principles of sovereignty.

(30) Aside from what is necessary to operate a business in an effective and productive manner, as well as what is necessary to improve that business through research and development, and/or is necessary to provide a fair return on its efforts, any profits that are generated by a business should be shared with the community or communities in which the business resides. The shareholders of a business should always be the entire community in which a business is located and not just a select number of private shareholders. In exchange for this arrangement, there should be no taxes assessed such a business. Moreover, both the business and the community become liable for whatever damages to individuals or communities are adversely affected by the activities of that business.

(31) A market in which all of its participants are not sovereign individuals is not a free market. Markets that exploit the vulnerabilities of participants are not free. Markets that are organized by the few in a way that undermines, corrupts, or compromises the principles of sovereignty are not free. Markets in which the participants are all equally sovereign are free, but, nonetheless, the freedom inherent in such markets should serve the interests of sovereignty for those who are both inside and outside of those markets.

(32) Sovereignty is only realizable when it is rooted in a collective, reciprocal, guarantee that we will all treat one another through the principles of sovereignty.

(33) Violations of sovereignty are an impediment to the full realization of the principles of sovereignty. However, such violations should not be primarily or initially be subject to either penalties and/or punishments. Instead, violations of sovereignty should be engaged through a process of mediated, conflict resolution and reconciliation intended to restore the efficacious and judicious functioning of sovereignty amongst both individuals and the collective. This mediated process is, first and foremost, rooted in a rigorous effort to determine the facts of a given situation before proceeding on with the process of mediation, conflict resolution, and reconciliation. A community has the right to defend itself against individuals who repeatedly violate, and show a disregard for, the sovereignty rights of other individuals, and the aforementioned right to self protection might assume the form of: treatment, exile, incarceration, paroled supervision, community service, and other forms of negotiated settlement.

(34) Alleged scientific and technical progress that cannot be rigorously demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to enhance the pursuit and realization of principles of sovereignty by everyone is subject to being governed by the precautionary principle.

(35) Sovereignty is not a form of democracy in which the majority rules on any given issue. Rather, sovereignty is a process of generating consensus within a community that can be demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, to serve the sovereignty interests of everyone.

(36) Sovereignty is rooted in the principle that one should take into consideration what the impact is likely to be, with respect to a given practice, on generations seven times removed from the current one before making a community decision.

(37) Everyone should underwrite the costs of pursuing, establishing, enhancing, realizing, and protecting sovereignty  -- both individually and collectively -- according to his or her capacity to do so.

(38) Sovereignty is not a function of political maneuvering, manipulations, or strategies. Rather, sovereignty is a function of the application of: reasoned discussion, critical reflection, constructive reciprocity, creative opportunities, and rigorous methodology in the pursuit of pushing back the horizons of ignorance and seeking to establish, enhance, realize, and protect sovereignty, both individually and collectively.

(39) Sovereignty is not about hierarchy or leadership. Advisors and technical consultants who are capable of lending their expertise and experience to a given project that serves the interests of sovereignty in a community are temporary facilitators whose responsibilities do not extend beyond a given project or undertaking. Such   facilitators often tend to arise in the context of a given need and, then, are reabsorbed into the community when a given need has been met.

(40) Education should serve the interests of establishing, developing, enhancing and protecting the principles of sovereignty – both individually and collectively – and not serve the interests of the way of power. Education should not use techniques of undue influence that push or pull individuals toward accepting, or rejecting, specific philosophical, political, economic, or religious perspectives.

(41) To whatever extent taxes are collected, those taxes should be assessed only on a local basis and only after all sovereignty needs of an individual for a given period of time have been addressed. Those taxes should be proportional -- within generally agreed upon specific limits -- to a person’s capacity to pay such taxes without undermining a person’s ability to fully pursue realizing the principles of sovereignty. Whatever taxes are collected can only be used in conjunction with projects of which the individual taxpayer approves. Disputes concerning the issue of taxation should be handled through mediated discussions and not through punitive or coercive policies.

The foregoing statements of principle concerning the idea of sovereignty mark the beginning of the exploratory process, not the end. We all need to critically reflect on these issues because what we have today is working for only a very small group of individuals who follow the way of power and, as a result, seek to prevent people in general from being able to pursue, establish, enhance, realize, and protect the principles of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is not something new. The idea of sovereignty has been inherent in human beings for a very, very long time, but, unfortunately, as events have demonstrated again and again for thousands of years, people’s aspirations for sovereignty have been thwarted persistently and rigorously by the way of power at nearly every juncture of history.

You can commit your moral and intellectual agency to the cause of sovereignty or you can cede that moral and intellectual agency to those who belong to the power elite – economically, militarily, socially, intellectually, politically, and religiously. The choice is entirely yours.

-----

If you would like to download a PDF edition of the foregoing Blog entry, please go to:

Beyond Democracies, Republics, and Ways of Power: 9/11 and the Idea of Sovereignty

The Rule of Law, Free Markets, and Maintaining Order: A Sufi Perspective

Yesterday, I was provided with a link to an article entitled: ‘The Myth of the Rule of Law’ by John Hasnas, an associate professor at the Georgetown University McDonough School of Business.  I immediately ran off (virtually speaking) to read the article, and was happy to discover that the piece made a lot of great points ... at least about the rule of law issue.

Ultimately, however, I am not sure that I agree with some of his conclusions concerning the possibility of using a ‘free market’ approach to the idea of establishing order quite independently of the legalistic machinery of the state. This potential disagreement has nothing to do with a belief that the state ought to be ‘the decider’ when it comes to dealing with social interaction since I am fully in agreement with Professor Hasnas when it comes to recognizing the totally arbitrary and politically motivated desire for control which colors, shapes, and orients all legal decisions.

I do believe that ‘order’ should be negotiated by people and not imposed by the state or by a central form of governance. This is my perspective irrespective of whether the form of governance is religious, militaristic, corporate, or political in character.

One problem that I have with the notion of ‘free market’ solutions (and I realize that Hasnas is using the phrase in a much broader sense than in a purely economic manner) involves my concerns around the idea of ‘free market’ forces. More specifically, I believe that such a notion is as mythical as is the idea of the rule of law.

Freedom/liberty is rooted in inalienable rights. Inalienable rights exist prior to the existence of governance or any other form of social interaction.

Inalienable rights are a function of natural law. However, my approach to natural law is quite different from what traditionally is the case when people seek to justify the idea of natural law – namely, by rooting such law in Divine decree or in certain philosophical/scientific ideas concerning the nature of human beings.

I have my own perspective in relation to the nature of reality, Divinity, and life. Nonetheless, I also realize that I cannot impose that perspective on other people by proposing that everyone else should adopt my point of view … this would be very egocentric of me … as it would be in relation to anyone who seeks to follow such a course of action (which, unfortunately, includes most politicians, administrators, lawyers, and judges).

So, if rights are not to be a function of law, or governance, or institutions, or religion, or philosophies of personhood, then to what sort of natural law basis am I alluding? The two basic dimensions of natural law have to do with epistemology and character.

All of us have beliefs and understandings concerning the nature of things. Nevertheless, none of us is able to demonstrate the proof of those beliefs and understandings beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of others … or even in accordance with a lesser standard of the preponderance of evidence.

We might know a few facts here and there – although as Norwood Hanson pointed out quite some time ago even the notion of a ‘fact’ tends to be theory-laden – but, none of us has an a way of assembling those facts into an unassailable theory concerning the nature of reality and the purpose, if any, of existence. What we all have in common is a considerable ignorance and accompanying inability to identify the nature of truth in any given set of circumstances.

Students of the literature will recognize that there is a certain resonance between the foregoing outline of our individual and collective epistemological dilemma and the ‘Veil of Ignorance’ idea advanced by John Rawls that was introduced through his seminal work: ‘A Theory of Justice’. One difference between the two perspectives is that Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance’ was a methodological device intended to lay the foundations for an analysis of the idea of justice, whereas my approach to ignorance is to point out that ignorance is our actual, existential condition … there is nothing of a methodological contrivance about it.

So, to what does ignorance entitle us? Well, for one thing, if we acknowledge our existential, epistemological condition, then everyone ought to have the right to seek to push back the horizons of ignorance in accordance with his ability and interests – provided that such activity does not interfere with the like right of another to push back those same horizons in accordance with his or her own ability and interests.

The foregoing principle can be summarized in what appears to be a very simple statement but one which has many subtleties – namely, ‘neither control nor be controlled. Among other things, one of those subtleties is that competitiveness (whether economic, religious, political, legal, academic, or athletic) tends to be entangled with issues of control, whereas co-operation tends to explore how solutions to problems can be found that involve neither controlling others nor being controlled by others –- and I believe that the cautionary principle in ecology gives expression to this sort of orientation.

There are, I feel, a number of ancillary rights that are entailed by the essential, natural right noted above.  For example, one cannot really be said to have a right to push back the horizons of ignorance if one must be preoccupied with merely trying to survive, and, therefore, the right -- within limits to be negotiated -- to: food, housing, clothing, health care, and a minimum guaranteed income are all part and parcel of the fundamental right to seek to push back the horizons of ignorance which befogs all of our lives.

Correlatively, every right is two-edged. In other words, rights involve duties of care toward others in order to be able to ensure that those individuals have what is necessary with respect to the issue of survival in order to be in an equitable position to try to push back the horizons of ignorance. To work for ourselves we must work for others.

Duties of care will not be fulfilled without character being present in some minimal fashion. This brings us to the second dimension of natural law..

One does not have to be committed to this or that religious system or this or that philosophical system to be able to understand that human beings have the capacity for character and that social order will prevail precisely to the extent that the principles of character are either present or absent. Developing character is one of the duties of care we have to ensure that rights are honored.

Some people who are religious have character, while others who consider themselves religious to not seem to grasp that idea and its inherent principles. Some people who are atheists have character, while others who share that general approach to life do not seem to exhibit the same sort of behavior.

One can argue that the possibility of character is a function of evolutionary progress over millions of years of change, or one can argue that the possibility of character is a gift of God or the Great Mystery. Nonetheless, in both case, the end result is the same – without character, human beings (and any society of which they may form) are in considerable difficulty.

By character, I am referring to the principles to which almost all religions and humanist traditions (atheistic or otherwise) subscribe and accord a special place within discussions of moral behavior. Patience, love, honesty, sincerity, humility, tolerance, charitableness, courage, integrity, nobility, compassion, love, friendship, gratitude, perseverance, fairness, and so on all give expression to the principles of character.

The key to order is: (a) the recognition of our condition of ignorance and a critically reflective realization of the rights (noted earlier) that ignorance entails; (b) the acquisition of the principles of character that are necessary to be able to properly honor the rights of (a) above; and, (c) a means of dispute resolution concerning the pursuit and implementation of both (a) and (b).

I tend to agree with the point made by Professor Hasnas in his article that stipulates how methods involving mediation/arbitration in relation to dispute resolution tend to be faster, cheaper, and more satisfying to the people who participate in those processes than what tends to be the outcome in relation to the adversarial dynamics that are inherent in legal battles involving the so-called rule of law. In my book: “The Unfinished Revolution”, I discuss how some indigenous peoples in Canada have returned to the teachings of their ancestors and use ‘healing circles’ to deal with some of the most horrendous offenses that one human being can inflict on others – for example, murder, rape, incest, egregious physical abuse, and the like – and, yet, have used healing circles to negotiate their way to not only resolving the conflict and tensions ensuing from the foregoing sorts of offenses but, as well, helping everyone – both victims (at least, the ones who are still living) and perpetrators – to find their way back to the natural laws involving rights, duties, of care, and character development. The results of such healing circles have been truly impressive and tend to far outstrip the ability of a ‘rule of law’ orientation to deal effectively with those issues.

In ‘The Unfinished Revolution’, as well as in another work of mine – ‘Democracy Lost and Regained’ [the book explores the 9^th and 10^th Amendments (mostly the latter) of the U.S. Constitution] – I indicate that if one takes sovereignty – both individual and collective – seriously, then people, not governments, must have control over their own destinies and that, perhaps, the best way of providing people with such control is through the vehicle of an enhanced notion of grand juries which takes the place of centralized, state and federal governments and involves a rotating membership drawn from local communities … although, in principle, one also could develop a trans-community form of grand jury that would work in co-operation with local grand juries with respect to certain issues that spill across localized boundaries.

My idea of grand jury governance is somewhat like the idea of the healing circles noted above. However, my grand juries are rooted in the two principles of natural law outlined earlier rather than in the spiritual teachings of this or that indigenous group … after all, the problem of diverse societies is that they are unable to do what such indigenous peoples do – that is, refer to a given tradition from the past which is part of the heritage of the people who are participating in the healing circles.

The capacity to negotiate is very important to maintaining order in a complex, diverse society. However, I believe there are ways to mediate social disputes that can be effective, practical, and co-operative which are quite apart from, and independent of, the notion of ‘free market forces’. 

People who are truly sovereign will co-operate and negotiate to discover solutions that are in everyone’s interests. Moreover, I believe that such sovereign individuals and collectives will be open to the capacity for creative, imaginative ways of doing things that are inherent in human beings.

Creativity, negotiation, character, duties of care, co-operation, and rights are all human forces. To the extent that we are truly sovereign individuals (and lest it is not clear, I consider a sovereign individual to be someone who is able to observe and put into practice the two foundational principles of natural law that have been outlined previously), we will be free to pursue and exercise those forces in functional, effective ways.

While the foregoing perspective might share certain resonances with the notion of a ‘free market forces-based’ approach to the problem of order in the public space, I really don’t consider the set of six factors that are mentioned at the beginning of the last paragraph to constitute a ‘free market’. Rather, those six forces merely give expression to the interaction of sovereign individuals seeking to establish the sort of order that is necessary to preserve and nurture the quality of sovereignty both individually and collectively.