What do we mean when we refer to ourselves or others as "sovereign individuals"? And, for that matter, what do we mean by "paradigm"? Let's examine paradigm first.
par·a·digm (par'a dim', -dim), n. 1. (has to do with grammar in which we are not interested.) 2. an example serving as a model; pattern. - Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Barnes & Nobel, 1996
The first part of the second definition is the one we are interested in, "an example serving as a model". Your world paradigm is the model you use to understand your world. It allows you to make sense of what you see happening around you. For example, if you believe in black magic, then you will tend to attribute everything that happens to you as the result of a curse. The paradigm you use to understand your world, especially how you relate to various government organizations determines, to a large extent, whether you are free or a slave.
Now let's examine what we mean by "sovereign individual". Most people probably readily understand what an individual is so let's not waste time on that. But what is a "sovereign"?
sov·er·eign (sov'rin, sov'er in, suv'-), n. 1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler. 2. a person who has sovereign power or authority. 3. a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority. 4. a gold coin of the United Kingdom, equal to one pound sterling; went out of circulation after 1914. -adv. 5. belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereignty; royal. 6. having supreme rank, power, or authority. 7. supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right. 8. greatest in degree; utmost or extreme. 9. being above all others in character, importance, excellence, etc. 10. efficacious; potent: a sovereign remedy. - Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Barnes & Nobel, 1996
That's quite a mouthful. When we refer to a "sovereign individual", we could be referring to royalty (definition 1) but we usually just say that a king or queen is "the sovereign" and we usually don't attach the term "individual" to it. When we refer to a "sovereign individual", especially here on this web site, we are using definition 2, "a person who has sovereign power or authority". Of course, that sort of begs the question as now we have to determine what we mean by "sovereign power". Definition 6 gives us a clue by defining "sovereign" as "having supreme rank, power, or authority". So, a working definition of "sovereign individual" is:
An individual who has supreme rank, power, or authority.
Assuming that there are such things as "sovereign individuals", how did they get that way? Who determines who is or is not a sovereign individual? The answers depend on your "paradigm". Perhaps it is time we examined some world paradigms so you can get a better idea of what your world paradigm is or should be.
One world paradigm that almost everyone subscribed to for several centuries is the feudal paradigm. Feudal society was based on "fealty", or the fidelity or faithfulness to a lord. During the Middle Ages, after the fall of the Roman Empire, almost everyone had a "lord", including the lords themselves. Workers in the field swore fealty to their "lord of the manor". The lord of the manor swore fealty to a higher level lord. This continued up the chain until it reached the king and the king swore fealty to God. When decisions had to be made, it was made by the highest lord that was concerned and that decision filtered down and was implemented by all lower lords and vassals. It was inconceivable to anyone living during this period that society could work any other way. (It should be noted, however, that even during this period, a lot of anarchic, or free market, transactions were taking place out of view of the various lords and kings.)
Another world view, one that many people cling to today, is that a group of people, a collective, can make better decisions than lords, scientists, or individuals. This is the basis of democracy which holds that a majority of people can make better decisions than individuals and that the decisions should be binding on everyone. This actually works for awhile but as soon as a majority of the collective realizes that they can vote themselves benefits at the expense of everyone else, it soon degenerates into a battle of who can get the most benefits from the public trough. You may notice the similarity to today's welfare state in the United States of America. Here, again, a lot of free market transactions are taking place even in the face of the rampant collectivism in the USA today. This is sometimes referred to as the "black market" or the "underground economy". For example, every time you ask a workman if he will give you a better price if you pay in cash, and he agrees, you are both participating in the underground economy. Welcome to the world of anarchy.
A world view that came into vogue around the time of the American Civil War is socialism. Socialism is based on the theory that everyone will work at what they do best and will work as hard as they can but that the wealth produced by this work will be shared equally according to every individual's need. (From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.) This sounds good but, in practice, not everyone will work at what they do best nor will they work as hard as they can since their reward is not connected to their effort. This situation requires a centralized control of the economy to ensure that everything gets done. The recent collapse of the Soviet Union is an indication of how poorly this works. (Communism is socialism with an attitude.) Again, we find that there is always a thriving black market under such a system. In fact, a black market is necessary to individual survival under such a system. (It seems that anarchy, the free market, thrives under any political or social system. Perhaps it's time for us to recognize that anarchy is the one system that actually works.)
Finally we get to the sovereign individual paradigm. This world view is that every individual can make the best decisions for himself and that no one else should have the power or authority to make decisions for him. (Or her. This is not intended to be sexist.) By the same token, he should not be able to make decisions for other people unless he is requested to do so. (Note that this is a wordy description of anarchy, or the unrestrained free market.) This paradigm can be neatly summed up in the non-agression principle which states:
It is immoral to initiate force or fraud against any sentient being.
In the absence of force or fraud, no one can make decisions for you without your consent for, otherwise, how would they ensure that you abided by the decision? The answer is that they cannot unless they use fraud to convince you that the decision is in your best interest when in fact it is not, or they use force or the threat of force to make you comply. Notice that this basically makes government immoral since all governments are based on force. (If you don't pay your speeding ticket, people with guns will arrest you and take you to jail until you pay.)
The sovereign individual paradigm was implemented, although imperfectly, by the founding fathers of the united States of America. They attempted to ensure that government would always be subservient to "the People" and thus created a society based upon the "sovereign individual". Unfortunately, this concept has been corrupted so that "the People" is now assumed to refer to a majority decision in an election. This has allowed politicians to convince most people that they are living in a democracy and most people now act as though that is true.
Today, sovereign individuals are those people who believe that government should be subservient to individuals and have figured out how to make that belief stick using methods that work. Most of the time. It's still possible for government agents to ignore their own laws and this, unfortunately, appears to be increasing over time. However, most government agents believe that they are law-abiding and if you can show them, using their own rules, that they are wrong, they will rule in your favor, at least for now. Unfortunately, this means that you must have a detailed knowledge of mountains of laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc.
One of the techniques used by sovereign individuals is to keep a low profile and confront government agents as little as possible. After all, if they don't know about you, they cannot attack you. This is the basis of Terra Libra which is discussed under "Freedom Technology" in another part of this Web site. Terra Libra attempts to provide sovereign individuals with ways to maintain a low profile, the street-smart techiques that actually work.
If this short treatise on the sovereign individual has piqued your interest in the subject, one of the best books I've seen is titled, naturally enough, The Sovereign Individual, by James Dale Davidson & Lord William Rees-Mogg, ISBN: 0-684-81007-7. It should be available in most major bookstores. In the book, the authors explain why the welfare state is collapsing and what will replace it (the sovereign individual paradigm). They also give a lot of tips on how to survive the change of paradigm. A good read and I highly recommend it.
Copyright at Common Law, West El Paso Information Network, 1997-2002