Archive of Autonomy -Agency 2

The many fights for the sovereignty of the few and freedom for the many.


If the many fights to secure a monopoly on force (sovereignty), then the many constitute the body of force (the sovereign body) – the notion of the many fighting to establish sovereignty for a few which then extend liberty back to the many corrupts the notion of reciprocity and ignores the conditions necessary in establishing sovereignty… that being group effort.

The many fights to establish a monopoly on force. The many constitute this body of force. Establishing monopoly on force creates a new commons – the common liberty (the benefits of sovereignty).

The body of force (the many) hands over ADMINISTRATION of the common liberty within the sovereign realm (administration of law). This is the many, the body of force, granting administrative power to a few to manage the new commons – the common liberty. This is the basis of Great King Alfred’s notion of the King as a servant to the people. The King administers (provides resolution of last resort) the commons of liberty, does not own it as a sovereign – but rather represents the body of sovereign people. Anyone who tells you otherwise seeks undue power.

Locke and Cooke were not rationalising new ideas – they were attempting a restoration of the original Saxon principles that were corrupted by monarchs who reversed the power structure by 1) claiming God given rights to rule 2) disarming the populace 3) removing the administration and policing of legal matters out of the hands of the citizenry and placing it into the hands of the nobles. All three of these examples are parasitic means to centralize power into the hands of the few.

The many do not fight for YOU dear would-be-ruler, they fight for themselves, their brothers, their wives, and children. YOU dear would-be-ruler are there only to manage the commons of liberty CREATED by the many.


Administration of the common liberty – King, state, parliament (any form will do) = the head

The citizenry by which the armed forces are comprised = the sovereign Body.

Communists, Socialist, Monarchists, Statists wish to cut the body away from the head

Anarchists, Libertarians wish to cut the head off of the body

Who does the fighting versus who does the commanding. Those doing the fighting obtain sovereignty. Those doing the commanding claim the accomplishment. Prior to fealty to the landlord (protection in exchange for taxes and military service) it was understood that leaders did not hold power on thier own, but rather where granted rule in exchange for administration of common peace. The idea of power resting with the people does not rise with the Enlightenment thinkers. It existed with the saxons prior to roman contact. All people hold “all freedoms with some rules”. The romans, “all rules with some freedoms” were combined into judge discovered law. Laws codified base on situations when the freedom of one colides with the freedom of another.

The current lie regarding power of the people (which has been a disastrous lie in America) does not come about through flawed reasoning behind enlightment democracy. It begins with the magna carta and is completed with disarming the populace.

The magna carta begins the shift of law enforcement from the polis to the the landlords.

Disarming the polis shifts military protection from the polis to the state. The lie of self rulership in the enlightenment covers fatherly parasitic behavior from prior centuries.

Lords did not grant protection, those who swore fealty did – they demonstrated sovereignty through their group effort – they constituted the sovereign body.

Alfred recognized this and held to “King as a servant” and as arbitrator and administrator of law. He saw the benfit of writen law (borrowed from the romans) but maintained “all freedoms with some law” – common law via negativa written according to folk-rights of the land (judge discovered.)

All where free without stipulation because freedom and liberty was attained and maintained by all in whatever capacity.

Agency only occurs at the individual level. Impositions on agency occurs at the group level. Preservation of the individual, preserves agency and thus stregthens the group.

The greatness of the western experiment hinges on the group (constraint) existing to actualize the individual because this maximizes agency on all levels.

We do not domesticate for fun and profit, we cultuvate agency by the administration of liberty.

We do this by reducing all matters of decidibility to the smallest unit – the individual – by observable measures – actions and property in toto.

Any assessment by group membership dillutes the power of the western project and serves only to concentrate power (fatherly parasitism)

The frankfurt school had us reverse the group and individual by equating the individual to a historic being. This is partly true in that an individual can not fulfill agency to any degree without the surrounding culture. Without being submerged in a culture an individual will never rise above a base level – we’d not be able to talk, walk or reason. Negating the individual in this context suppresses the individual’s agency and thus agency in the group. This is why communism, authroitarianism, totalitarianism fails.

Recognizing that the group, comprised of matured individuals, exists for the actualization of the individual (because this ensures fitness), the west has maximized agency in every context.

This requires law to ignore group membership and focuss only on the individual (if not law would not have commensurability across situations), a culture of tolerance to prevent imposition from one person to another and lastly constraint (law).

Tolerance with limits is correct.

The limits revolve around preservation of the conditions for all individuals to maximize agency.

What the left has done is errode the limits in the name of radical tolerance. The cybernetic response from the right is to equate this attack to the failings of individualism- that individualism has lead to the downfall of the west. Its not true.

Classism proposes reduction in individual agency by nonstate, social measures. We all have one binding drive, we all seek our own self interest – this is what binds us as a group – the actualization of the individual which echos benefits across all scales.


To reintroduce group membership as the unit of measure falls for the trap set by the platonists-left. Groups do not have agency. Only individuals have agency.


That soveriengs grant liberty in exchange for profit (taxation for protection.

If sovereignty has been established via defense of the realm, a sovereing can’t grant what the people already have (autonomy) thus there is no exchange. If sovereingty has been obtained via conquest granting liberty hands back to the conquered what the sovereign initial took through an act of predation.

The sovereing as ruler who exchanges liberty for production claims ownership over that which can only be obtained via an act of theft.

The right to rule over others (creation of a ruling class) based on demonstrated sovereingty can only occur after an imposition of property in toto (autonomy) in both directions – toward the put group as conqueror or to the ingroup as ruler.


I find no circumstance in which ruling over another does not originate as an imposition of property in toto.

Exchange of production for protection does not give rise to rights granted by soverieng rulers over the ruled, it stands as a viable means for one to obtain protection of what they already have/had(autonomy).

In this context the sovereing extending liberty actually restores the property the people already had (autonomy) but if done as a ruler it does not fully restore the imposition as the people are not free from external force. Liberty and freedom exists as different degrees of incomplete restoration for impositions on the property of autonomy.

Sovereigns do not obtain sovereignty then extend benefits of sovereingty to others in exchange for production. They either impose upon the autonomy of other then “sell back” a portion of that property… or they preserve the already existing autonomy and maintain this autonomy via execution of law.

The only arguments for ruler over another hides the predation and subsequent theft.

The implication here – all in the realm are autonomous, presumed to be so, not because it is granted by those who hold force, but because they hold ownership of autonomy which can only ever be transfer after an imposition on property in toto. Any “demonstration” of soverieng rule, actually demonstrates criminality.

First among peers stands as the act of selecting one of good judgement to adminster the common liberty by insuring all imposition upon the autonomy of others are fully restored from both outgroup and ingroup impositions.


Administration of justice and defense does not constitute ultimate authority but authority limited to impositions on property in toto. “All freedom some rules” all are autonomous, free from external force until one imposes upon another at which point force is used to resolve the imposition.

Granting liberty from a soverieng stands as “all rules some freedom” whereby any actions free from restriction are granted via permission of the sovereing.

That later describes rule. The former describes “king as servant”

Discretion does not capture all operations which authority encompasses.

Authority – the right to give orders, make decisions, enforce obedience.

Administration of justice and defense limits “authority” to discretionary acts regarding impositions on property in toto only (judicial, military) and limits enforcing behavior and giving orders to that limited sphere.

Authority can not be replaced by discretion for that reason.

Domestication for fun or profit or granting liberty in exchange for production also does not capture the discretionary limits.

The soveriegn who preserves autonomy of the people, by accounting for the state of autonomy which existed before soveriengty became relevant, operates with in Natural Law. Preservation of autonomy provides the limit on the sovereign’s domain of power. Their power only extends to circumstances where an imposition has occured.

Soveriengs who obtain sovereignty by imposition on the autonomy of others, destroy autonomy to then sell back liberty and freedom. They are not constrained by natural law. And presume their power extends to all and everything, which they then gift back portions in exchange for production.

By equating authority to descretion hides the necessary limits and gives the impression that liberty extends from the sovereign – their status as sovereign extends from breaking natural law not preserving it…. why would we fight for such a leader when they demonstrate they will not be constrained by natural law.

Recognizing that autonomy exists and soveriengty stands as the perservation of autonomy differentiates european civilization from others (including rome). By preserving autonomy and limiting sovereign power to only address impositions of property in toto (measurable output of agency unfettered by imposition = autonomy), affords agency of all individual to be fully actualized and expressed, thus creating the circumstances to be “the fastest”.

By recognizing autonomy of even those who are less able than us, stands as the payment we make to ensure the system stays within the constraints of natural law.

Classism as a formal social structure devolves (and did errode) nomocratic rule into the various types of rule which eventually operate outside Natural Law. This happens because, by recognizing the autonomy of all pays into preserving the system. Classism justifies not paying into the constraints on power.

Individualism ensures we all make this payment.


Roussue and rothbart – nope. Roussuean man it nature IMO shows obnoxious wishfull thinking. Rothbard wanted to rape to commons. Lockean – man in nature in a state of liberty wpuld be closer. I’ll get to the rest later.


The notion of elites as a separate ruling class was further entrenched when the Khazar rulers married the french nobility and introduced the idea of “blue bloods” and bloodlines.

Champions of a Nobel house were not the romantized view we have today. They patroled the borderlands. They’d hassle people on the borderlands until they pledged allegiance to either the house which was not hassling them, an exchange for defense, or subjugated to the one hassling them.

The notion of taxation in exchange for defense results from fatherly predation not a condition of common law or aristrocratic egalatarianism. Fatherly survival strategy can parasite and arguably most of the west is best rhetoric created by Rhodes, Curtis, Milner stands as a justification for fatherly parasitic behavior. A reality tunnel created to extend the influence of british ruling elite to the colonies which they had given independence too. A way to maintain rule by the back door (via culture and identity)

(Read the slavery post – one issue, with physical human action only one prime mover of the body exists – the slaver stands as a secondary point of control. so to say a slaver controls a slave fails parsimony regarding control…. and a slaver – slave relationship stands as a contract of “comply or die” the slave complies by choice to avoid death) i think self-ownership and slavery both can not be cogent notions – agency can’t be property, it can’t be transfered and is necessary for property (a fundimental cannot be its own consequenctial) and blah blah blah (day three of severe insomnia)


Humans are mobile creatures. Mobility allows humans to seek out benefit. The ability to seek out benefits we call agency. The conditions for full expression of agency we call autonomy. Autonomy affords the best possibility to find or create benefits.

Impositions upon autonomy reduces benefits. Sovereignty, the monopoly on force, allows the preservation and protection of autonomy (military service) also the prevention of impositions on agency and restoration of agency (in all forms – actions, property in toto) when impositions occur (law,courts)

Agency only exists at the level of the individual. Soverienty then seeks to preserve and protect the autonomy of individuals. By doing so full potential of agency can be realized resulting in maximum benefits for all with in the soverieng realm.

Agency, being an innate human ability, can only be developed via exposure, i.e. in a group. The group allows for the individual to cultivate agency. Some group structures are better suited for the development of agency. Groups with a central tenant of preserving, protecting, and supporting autonomy of the individual allows for maximum agency and thus stands as a group worth contributing to via protection, production, and reproduction….

I add something like that to define individual and provide reasoning for group support, individual support etc…. then of course markets – markets are conducive to agency and property in toto results from agency (the sought benefit)

Facebook Comments