Sovereignty, if not for individual and country, then not at all

“Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.” Henry David Thoreau

Do you consider yourself to be a sovereign individual? Do you enjoy the right to own property? Do you abhor tyranny, war, and big government?



It is the year two thousand and thirteen, Anno Domini – I ask you, “Is sovereignty still intrinsic to a democracy, dictatorship, quasi-theocracy, or republic“? Do they not have in common the ever burning desire to be free from outside interference and subjugation at the international level, and do not the individuals yearn for freedom and self-ownership. I ask you, “What man or woman ever voted to give up self-ownership, and put that inalienable and intrinsic right into the hands of the collective?” Historically, the individual and by extension the country or nation state, have striven for self-determination and self-ownership, the United States of America being the most shining example in recent history. Never once has a voter pursued tyranny, with the hope of achieving freedom. For what man would willfully choose to abdicate his freedom, whether noble or peasant!

A great man once said “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”



Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, globalization was, is, and will be, knocking at the figurative door with its quizzical agenda. Globalization, whether considered a zero or positive sum game, has created a new species of organization. A truly global corporation with a global perspective. The world is gravitating toward a single marketplace. As barriers to trade are reduced or dissolved in the name of free trade and economic growth, as we approach a singular marketplace, you might think mankind would stop and consider the relevance of sovereignty. Is it viewed as an archaic hangover from the past, impeding the road to a truly global world and its textbook theories, or is it a vital piece of ourselves and our respective homelands, that should never be ceded?


International Trade Agreements

International trade, in practice, not just in theory, has been proven to inspire innovation, enhance competition, reduce inefficiencies, and increase economic growth. These features are positive when viewed from an economic perspective, without bias favoring either consumer or producer. Legislation and behavior that impedes trade is counterproductive and undesirable, at least according to popular opinion among economists. Where it becomes murky, is when a trade agreement requires tearing off pieces of sovereignty, piece by piece, whether food sovereignty (the ability to choose whether you eat GMO, not whether Monsanto desires it to be), health sovereignty (freedom of choice to legally produce and consume natural alternatives to pharmaceuticals from major organizations such as Pfizer).



It’s all about the fine print people. I will use the lobbyist model for legislation enactment in this example. Not only specific for the USA, lobbyists, front-men for the guild of special interest groups, are paid to present and offer financial incentives to influence congress to have laws enacted, laws which are obviously drafted by corporations and special interest groups. In my country, major laws are either forced upon us via political strong arming, in which we usually acquiesce, and rarely ever by referendum. Political hot potatoes are rushed through late at night, not dissimilar to the method by which the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was enacted late that fateful night of December 23rd. Woodrow Wilson, current president at the time, later rued the decision, quote “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”



Take an active role in your district, support good men and women. Familiarize yourself with important laws, such as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Patriot Act, etc. It is up to you to be wise and knowledgeable. Nobody will take your freedom more seriously than you.

If you’d be so kind to share my blog, whether on your Facebook page or twitter, I’d be grateful. Feel free to leave any comments you may have…


One thought on “Sovereignty, if not for individual and country, then not at all

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s