It is the right to rule. The question then becomes, “The right to rule what?”. The most obvious answer is “the right to rule over the land and those people within it”. Sovereignty deals with a physical area and those within it . It is the partitioning of a fixed area. It is implemented in the global realm by dividing the world up into nations with further division occurring based upon area. As a result, we see sovereignty being broken down into states, then counties, then houses, then rooms, then individual people. This is the top-down view. But is it correct?

In the beginning, sovereignty was seen as belonging solely to a ruler of all, ie, a dictator. But the fact is the very seed of sovereignty is the individual person, as evidenced by a collection of individuals overthrowing a corrupt ruler to claim for themselves sovereignty over their individual bodies, yet recognizing the need to relinquish some powers to a higher collection of individuals in the service of preserving the common culture in the neighboring resident area. So today we see sovereignty as issuing up from the individual to higher levels of organization.

This may seem contrary to those who see GOD as the ultimate authority. But if we see GOD as granting each individual a free will, then it can be argued that the individual has been given sovereignty by GOD, & it is ultimately from GOD via the individual that higher organizations get their sovereignty.

And now comes the zinger. Sovereignty not only implies the right to rule, but it implies the duty to protect the ruled. And should that duty be neglected, then the sovereignty that was granted the ruler is revocable.

Now I hear some saying “What about violent gangs? Are they sovereign?” Such gangs are usually run by a dominant bully in the protection of their turf and violating the sovereignty of others. They are no different than a dictator who claims sovereignty over a nation, making threats & breeding injustice.



In other words, sovereignty should not exist for global government. Sovereignty should remain at the lower levels getting stronger at each lower geographic level. Currently within the US, there are 4 levels of government based upon inclusiveness: local, state, federal & global. It is far too easy for any one of these levels to become corrupt, and the higher the level the greater danger there is of wide spread tyranny.

Of course, this view must be augmented by the level of government in possession of the nuclear bomb. But as time passes, we see the proliferation of this threat down to lower levels. And when a level of government fails in its agreed to responsibilities, the next level down must pick up the slack.

If a federal government fails to protect and secure the borders it has agreed upon, then it is up to the individual sovereign states to do so. This implies a necessity for redundancy in military organizations between state and federal levels, each subordinate to their respective level of government. By the same token, if a state government fails in its agreed upon duties, then it is up to the counties to do so.



It is obvious that the more populated a geographic area, the greater the people’s power to influence their immediate geographic government. But to what extent should it have the power to influence a higher level of government that includes geography beyond its bounds & occupies a different culture? This is the reason for the Electoral College and why popular vote alone to select a governor at the higher levels is unacceptable. It assures diversity of both lands and cultures.

Based upon the two factors in determining electorate power, it seems evident that the measure of electorate power should be equal to the citizen population of an area multiplied by the size of the area.