Struggles for Sovereignty

“Sovereignty is conserved,” says Moldbug. “You can spread it around, though, but don’t expect to enjoy the result.” He says this in the context of the early Arab Spring, and in light of more recent history, one can see why “spreading around” sovereignty is to be avoided. However, I’m not sure that “to spread around” is the correct verb for our direct object in this context. It seems to me that the various Arab Springs, from Egypt to Syria, have unleashed a struggle for sovereignty. To what extent can we say that any one side of the struggle, in either country, possesses a stable sovereignty over the other sides? To no extent at all. Otherwise, there would be no real struggle. What we see in the Middle East is what happens when sovereignty (e.g., Mubarak’s and Assad’s governments) is shattered, leaving a power vacuum in its wrecked wake. The vacuum is filled with forces coming from all sides, and whoever fills it ultimately exchanges the force with which they filled it for a more lasting power. Sovereignty over the others.

I’ll revise this in two seconds, but for now, the “struggle for” sovereignty in a power vacuum is not the same as “spreading around” sovereignty that already exists, which, in my mind, is synonymous with an attempt to bind sovereignty by not allowing it to come formally to rest in any one unconstrained person or oligarchy. Nick Land’s description of the American constitution:

. . . the founders envisaged the grounding principle of republican constitutionalism as a division of powers, whereby the component units of a disintegrated sovereignty bound each other. The animating system of incentives was not to rest upon a naive expectation of altruism or voluntary restraint, but upon a systematically integrated network of suspicion, formally installing the anti-monarchical impulse as an enduring, distributed function. If the republic was to work, it would be because the fear of  power in other hands permanently over-rode the greed for power in one’s own.

The ongoing debate, recently rekindled, is over whether or not real political sovereignty can, in fact, bind itself. What does the binding? If the answer is “constitutional rules,” then there is a chance that power can indeed be bound, albeit with difficulty. If the answer is, “Don’t you mean who does the binding,” then clearly, as Moldbug argues, sovereignty is always conserved—whoever does the binding on the sovereign is himself (or are themselves) the sovereign.

Now, to spread around sovereignty is to bind sovereignty . . . but no, that’s not right at all, or, anyway, it’s only half-right. Is not the Cathedral’s power “spread around”? In the Cathedral itself, is there not a tripartite division of power, three component units of disintegrated sovereignty, formalized as the Media, the USG, and Academia, each of which, within itself, contains further divisions of power? But these divisions are not there to constrain the Cathedral’s power over the West.

~~~

There are two ways to understand the concept of rules that bind sovereignty.

1. Rules that bind the sovereign.

2. Rules that constrain the struggle for sovereignty so that no would-be sovereigns can ever rule permanently or wholly, or take over violently.

I think the original intent of the U.S. constitution had (2) in mind, not (1). Of course, (2) assumes that different actors on opposing teams are always trying to attain power. What happens when all the actors are, as it were, on the same team?

~~~

Look again at Nick Land’s quote above. I think the crux of the paragraph comes at the end, not at the beginning. “A division of powers” or “component units” are necessary but insufficient elements of a disintegrated sovereignty in which each unit or division is bound by the other. The sufficient elements are “networks of suspicion” and “fear of [the others’] power.”

Per (2) above, constitutional rules only bind power in the USG when there is a real struggle for power, when those playing the game honestly want to see different outcomes—I win, the rest of you lose. Perhaps we can read The Federalist Papers (more generously than I have in the past) as the rules that peacefully constrain the struggle for sovereignty. More, they lay down rules that not only constrain the struggle for sovereignty but also ensure that no single victor can ever emerge wholly or permanently. Absent such rules, the struggle for sovereignty looks like Syria. With such rules, the struggles for state control are always constrained—everyone wants to win, but no one really can, at least not for good—so absolute sovereignty is constrained de facto. If a particularly bad administration comes to power, the country just needs to ride it out for a few years while the gathering forces against it do their work via the proper, procedural, and, most importantly, peaceful channels.

But as I said, this game of constraint, this division of power, only works if you actually have different teams competing in the game. Our constitutional rules are constraining the current players . . . but all the players are on the same team.

~~~

Sovereignty binds itself through constitutional rules = There are rules in place to constrain the struggles for sovereignty within a state

When the competing political actors all more or less resemble one another, all the rules do is to procedurally maintain housekeeping and settle minor tactical disputes.

~~~

Once the struggling political actors are struggling for more or less the same thing—once all the would-be sovereigns share the same vision of sovereignty—then it doesn’t matter a whit that power is formally divided. The “networks of suspicion” and “fear of others power” no longer exist in any meaningful way (if they ever did?).

It doesn’t matter that the system was set up to ensure the game never ended because now the game doesn’t need to end. The victories of one side are either indistinguishable from those of the other side, or they move the country in the same direction, albeit at different speeds. The opposing teams are not enemies struggling for power but, say, departments in a corporation competing for an annual sales prize on more or less friendly terms.

Corporate divisions of power work because (pardon the Jesse Jackson-ism here) the divisions share a same vision. Rarely will you find a corporation in which one department is full of people trying to completely change or overhaul the company. So too with the Cathedral. The divisions of power are not checks on power because no one is competing to overthrow the Cathedral; the divisions exist to “spread around” or perhaps “spread out” the Cathedral’s power in all the directions that matter, for the benefit of the Cathedral in general. Power plays within it are not power plays against it. So, in the game of American and, more generally, Western politics, the continuing play on the field is now for the benefit of the spectators, who think a game is still being played in earnest by sides who really are different from the other sides, who really are competing against one another. By and large, they aren’t.

~~~

Can sovereignty bind itself without the existence of another, greater sovereign to do the binding? I’ve ignored this question for now. Instead, I’ve tried to explore the idea of bound sovereignty by shifting what we usually mean by that term—binding sovereignty can also mean constitutional rules designed to peacefully constrain struggles for sovereignty. It seems to me that the American founding fathers were concerned with controlling these potential struggles, so that armed and violent revolutions didn’t happen every decade or two, and so whoever did attain a degree of sovereignty could be kept in check by others who had attained degrees of it elsewhere in the divided government. Networks of suspicion and fear.

The fathers failed to assume, however, that, at some point in the future, a meaningful struggle would cease to exist, that all powerful actors in the public and political spheres would not differ too widely in ideology or direction, that there would be a sovereign who exists without meaningful competition. The other, Moldbuggian question of bound sovereignty is so difficult because it’s so new, so unprecedented.

Can the Cathedral be bound at all by what remains of the West’s constitutions? If so—if it can be meaningfully challenged—then that’s a good sign for the constitutionalists among us. The upcoming decade will be interesting. For the first time since 1945 in Europe (since 1865 in America), something like real political challengers have arisen. How will they fare? The Tea Party gained a modicum of power via proper, peaceful, constitutional channels, as did Golden Dawn. If Golden Dawn goes the way of the Tea Party, however, I think we can give up all hope of sovereignty’s ability to constrain itself through constitutional rules.

ADDED: One of Nick Land’s comments at Outside In is pertinent. At certain points, perhaps I’m too hastily conflating Power and Sovereignty:

It’s tempting to equate ‘sovereignty’ and ‘power’, but it leads to confusion. Power is quantitative and hierarchical — the existence of a superior authority does not negate power. Power is not diminished by being exceeded. (It is like wealth in this respect.) Sovereignty is different — it is by its essential nature ultimate. Sovereignty belongs exclusively to the final authority in a chain of command (whilst power is distributed unevenly throughout it).

‘Power is conserved’ means that there is always final authority.

Advertisements

39 responses

  1. jamesd127

    The Tea Party gained a modicum of power via proper, peaceful, constitutional channels,

    See the post “Always Betraying, and always betrayed”

    June 26, 2013 at 11:06 pm

  2. “The fathers failed to assume, however, that, at some point in the future, a meaningful struggle would cease to exist, that all powerful actors in the public and political spheres would not differ too widely in ideology or direction, that there would be a sovereign who exists without meaningful competition.” — this is a very important insight which moves the discussion forward significantly.

    June 27, 2013 at 4:14 am

  3. nickHW

    The basic error in this analysis is apparent from Nick Land’s quote:

    “Sovereignty belongs exclusively to the final authority in a chain of command”

    Not all, an indeed in many polities not most, of law or politics takes place via such a master-servant (or commander-subordinate, or boss/employee) relationships. Three other kinds of relationships are often more common in creating and enforcing law and more generally in forming the distribution of political power: (1) principal-agent relationships, a.k.a. delegation, with much longer representation distances than the tight master-servant relationship, (2) subsidiarity relationships, which are governed by general rules, e.g. writs or enumerated powers, rather than commands, and (3) peer-to-peer relationships, which involve peer polities agreeing to converge on some kinds of law and agreeing how to resolve conflicts when their law diverges.

    Nick Land’s definition combined with the popular view that “sovereignty” is a universally applicable political concept, in short implies that all politics is always in essence a command-and-control dictatorship. Such a blinkered view can hardly give rise to a useful political philosophy.

    June 27, 2013 at 4:15 am

    • jamesd127

      Three other kinds of relationships are often more common in creating and enforcing law and more generally in forming the distribution of political power: (1) principal-agent relationships, a.k.a. delegation, with much longer representation distances than the tight master-servant relationship, (2) subsidiarity relationships, which are governed by general rules, e.g. writs or enumerated powers, rather than commands, and (3) peer-to-peer relationships, which involve peer polities agreeing to converge on some kinds of law and agreeing how to resolve conflicts when their law diverges.

      Power delegated is apt to be lost: The legislature delegated power to the bureaucracy.

      Writs or enumerated powers need, as Moldbug points out, someone to interpret them, for example the supremes, who interpret black as meaning white and up as meaning down.

      Peer to peer relationships must ultimately be subject to the final argument of kings.

      June 27, 2013 at 5:25 am

      • Jim, based on your comment here and your comments at Outside In, I’m not sure where your disagreement with Foseti lies anymore! You both seem to agree in the inescapability of a final sovereignty.

        June 27, 2013 at 12:37 pm

      • jamesd127

        Jim, based on your comment here and your comments at Outside In, I’m not sure where your disagreement with Foseti lies anymore! You both seem to agree in the inescapability of a final sovereignty.

        I don’t think it is inescapable, but obviously the methods employed by the founding fathers failed to escape it.

        June 27, 2013 at 10:50 pm

      • nickHW

        (This is also a reply to sharlach’s comment below)

        Nevertheless, many polities where peer-to-peer and subsidiarity relationships are or were far more common and important than command-and-control relationships have persisted for many hundreds of years. And there are many modern counter-trends as well. Even in the U.S. the 2nd and 10th Amendments are both more strongly enforced now than they were in the middle of the 20th century, for example — both enabling subsidiaries.

        And really, if the trends towards dominance of politics by master-servant relationships are so relentlessly bad, what’s the point of endlessly repeating just this one piece of old bad news? How does one derive any value from reading for the millionth time that the Roman Empire is the only inevitable form of government? Does anybody in the neoreactionary movement really have any reasonable expectation that they are going to be the emperor of this vast political army? If you’re not expecting to be boss yourself, what’s the point of promoting it as inevitable? If to be a political player you have to be under the boot of somebody else, why not just give up politics already and take up a more cheery hobby?

        As for myself, I observe a history and even a present far too rich in subsidiarity and peer-to-peer relationships between polities to want to throw my hands up in a final throw of Stockholm syndrome and give up on it all in favor of permanent universal and unescapable empire.

        June 27, 2013 at 2:34 pm

      • jamesd127

        Nevertheless, many polities where peer-to-peer and subsidiarity relationships are or were far more common and important than command-and-control relationships have persisted for many hundreds of years

        The major examples I see of this were Icelandic saga period anarchy, heroic age Greece, and tenth to thirteenth century European feudalism. Note that heroic age Greece was also called Dark Age Greece. Do you have some other examples in mind?

        June 27, 2013 at 9:05 pm

      • jamesd127

        In most of medieval Europe, most of the substantive law was adjudicated (and by precedent made) by jurisdictions subsidiary to royal jurisdiction, and peer to each other,

        That is thirteenth and fourteenth century Europe, where the sovereignty of the King was limited by the prospect of one of his lords pulling out his sword and having a go at the King.

        The sovereignty of the USG over the the various nations of the world is limited by a somewhat similar factor.

        To restore that kind of peer to peer relationship in the US, would be to militarily reverse the outcome of Civil War One.

        June 27, 2013 at 10:16 pm

      • nickHW

        @jamesd127

        In most of medieval Europe, most of the substantive law was adjudicated (and by precedent made) by jurisdictions subsidiary to royal jurisdiction, and peer to each other, including very interesting specialized courts such as merchant courts. The encompassing royal jurisdiction typically did not do much more than enforce a procedural law (typically a law of political property), some of what we would today categorize substantive law, specifically property law, necessarily tied to that procedural law, and powers to levy troops and raise certain narrow kinds of taxes for war. In short substantive law was dominated by subsidiary and peer-to-peer relationships, not by the (then very small) royal bureaucracy.

        Also, there are many examples of modern law developed primarily via peer-to-peer relationships, including international law, conflict-of-laws law, the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States, and many others, as well as many subsidiary relationships.

        June 27, 2013 at 9:26 pm

      • jamesd127

        Also, there are many examples of modern law developed primarily via peer-to-peer relationships, including international law, conflict-of-laws law, the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States, and many others, as well as many subsidiary relationships.

        That was eighteenth century international law. Today’s international law is manufactured by the State Department, the New York Times and Harvard. The Uniform Commercial Code is these days superseded by the hundred thousand page regulatory interpretation of two thousand page congressional legislation, and so on and so forth.

        June 27, 2013 at 10:22 pm

    • @NickHW

      Nick Land’s definition combined with the popular view that “sovereignty” is a universally applicable political concept, in short implies that all politics is always in essence a command-and-control dictatorship.

      Rather, I think it implies that all politics, regardless of the nuanced procedures or seemingly mitigated command/control relationships, ultimately result in command/control relationships down the line. I think the other “sovereignty” relationships you describe simply make it psychologically easier for the commanded to deal with or rationalize their own subordination.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:41 pm

  4. @NickHW

    As for myself, I observe a history and even a present far too rich in subsidiarity and peer-to-peer relationships between polities to want to throw my hands up in a final throw of Stockholm syndrome and give up on it all in favor of permanent universal and unescapable empire.

    Well, the Dark Enlightenment is all about accepting terrible truths that we can’t do much about . . .

    That said, I personally haven’t given up. Most of the discussion going on at this point is laying the groundwork for what will, hopefully, become a more robust answer to the question of sovereignty. Everything floated here is tentative.

    If you have time, can you provide a little more detail on what you mean by “subsidiarity”? Extended examples are always helpful.

    June 27, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    • jamesd127

      I observe a history and even a present far too rich in subsidiarity and peer-to-peer relationships between polities

      A present? Please give examples. Be mindful of the iron law of oligarchy.

      June 27, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    • nickHW

      Subsidiarity is where one has an encompassing jurisdiction which exercises a limited / enumerated set of powers of encompassed ones, via general rules. The most familiar example is a federal system: e.g. in the U.S., the federal government typically cannot give direct orders to states, it governs them by a traditionally enumerated set of powers.

      A much better example, because the encompassing jurisdiction was far more and more clearly limited, is the system of writs (instructions limited to very narrow categories which had to be in perfect form) and political property rights in medieval Europe, as I described in my reply to jamesd above and have written about extensively elsewhere.

      June 27, 2013 at 9:40 pm

      • Ok, thanks. I assumed that’s what you meant, but I didn’t want to conflate anything in your data-heavy posts.

        I think the rejoinder—and I’m still working this out—is that such systems tend toward oligarchy no matter how finely the rules are written. The federal government cannot give direct orders to states, but they do it obliquely. In California, marijuana is legal; the feds say it isn’t and, until recently, the FBI regularly raided medical marijuana dispensaries. Just one example of how subsidiary relationships break down.

        June 27, 2013 at 9:44 pm

      • jamesd127

        The most familiar example is a federal system: e.g. in the U.S., the federal government typically cannot give direct orders to states, it governs them by a traditionally enumerated set of powers.

        No it does not.

        A white teacher in Alabama teaches white kids race hatred against whites because the federal government has decided that she will do so. Where is that in your enumerated powers?

        June 27, 2013 at 10:38 pm

      • nickHW

        @sharlach:

        Changes in relative power can go in both directions. During most of the 13th-15th centuries local jurisdictions grew at the expense of the crown. The king kept selling various jurisdictions and even entire counties to lords in order to raise money, especially for the 100 Years’ War. The buyers had to have a reasonable confidence that the king wouldn’t later usurp their political property rights, otherwise they would sell cheap and the king wouldn’t raise much money. Also, the king himself held his crown as a political property right, so also had that incentive to maintain the integrity of that institution generally.

        During the early colonial era English colonies among others were similar to those mostly-privatized counties. Most of the American colonies for example were corporate colonies. They even issued stock like the East India companies. A few others were proprietary, very similar to the counties palatine in England. So there was a big resurgence of loose subsidiary relationships at the expensive of the hierarchy during the early and most productive growth phase of the British Empire.

        The more recent trends have, alas, been mostly the other direction.

        @jamesd:
        See for example the modern peer-to-peer law I mentioned above.

        June 27, 2013 at 11:46 pm

      • jamesd127

        The king kept selling various jurisdictions and even entire counties to lords in order to raise money, especially for the 100 Years’ War. The buyers had to have a reasonable confidence that the king wouldn’t later usurp their political property rights.

        You will notice the king sold only to people who might well kill him were he to later usurp the political property rights he had sold them. He probably would have preferred to sell to people who could not kill him, but they were less interested in buying.

        June 28, 2013 at 1:42 am

  5. @ nickHW
    Invoking P2P law (fascinating though the topic is) doesn’t help at all with the problem of the Cathedral, which is a command-control apparatus. Assuming that you’re not trying to tell us that Cathedral functions of revenue raising, currency legitimation, economic regulation, attitudinal policing, international regime selection (or at least selective subversion), and others — none of which are remotely P2P — are in actuality somehow far cuddlier than they seem, how is a concerted attempt to shift attention away from the question of sovereignty at all helpful?

    June 28, 2013 at 2:34 am

    • jamesd127

      how is a concerted attempt to shift attention away from the question of sovereignty at all helpful?

      He implies that there are better solutions than the five good emperors.

      I rather think there are, but constitutionalism is not one of them.

      June 28, 2013 at 3:31 am

    • I also think he’s implying that certain elements in current systems needn’t be overhauled completely to make them more amenable to reactionary systems. He’s encouraging us to see what can be salvaged and what’s already working. But as you say, I’m not yet convinced that his analysis isn’t making things cuddlier than they really are.

      June 28, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    • Nick Land et al,

      You have focused on a small window in which a vague political elite is indeed ascendant. You probably don’t thank yourself each day for the right to own private property, not be a slave, express opinions like you do on these blogs, etc. However, human beings have shown themselves capable and willing, or even eager to deny other humans these opportunities should that consolidate their power.

      If you want to say that some group of Westerners is “sovereign”, I would expect you to explain why these supreme beings haven’t already consolidated their power by placing much nastier and more burdensome constraints upon us all. However, I wouldn’t be too excited about the discussion. It seems to be anchored by Moldbug’s beliefs, but you should bear in mind that on this subject he has even enthused about Filmer, a ridiculous shill. I am a fan of Moldbug, but one must always take what he says with several pinches of salt.

      June 28, 2013 at 3:01 pm

      • jamesd127

        If you want to say that some group of Westerners is “sovereign”, I would expect you to explain why these supreme beings haven’t already consolidated their power by placing much nastier and more burdensome constraints upon us all.

        You are asking why today’s officially unofficial theocracy has not made itself officially official.

        Compare today’s officially unofficial theocracy, with the officially official theocracy of restoration England.

        Which was more free?

        June 29, 2013 at 8:29 am

    • jqhart

      So who is at the top is issuing the the commands? Find him and kill him. Problem solved.

      The problem of course is that the Cathedral is very far from being a singular or simple command-and-control structure. It’s more about evangelizing and acting on common beliefs than about issuing or following orders. So obsessing with the idea of sovereignty is what is not helpful.

      June 28, 2013 at 9:37 pm

      • jamesd127

        The problem of course is that the Cathedral is very far from being a singular or simple command-and-control structure

        Quite so: The concept of sovereignty is based on Kings, who are military leaders. A monarchy is a military dictatorship with the rough bits polished smooth by time and custom.

        We have a theocracy. Theocracies do not have sovereigns. Supposedly the truth rules, the official truth. The concept of sovereignty belongs to the peace of Westphalia. The peace of Westphalia is dead, will need a new peace, which will likely follow a new war.

        June 29, 2013 at 1:55 am

      • I don’t think even Moldbug understands sovereignty as a thing belonging to a simple monarch. Just because sovereignty is complexly distributed in our current context doesn’t mean it cease to be sovereign. Just ask any white kid in L.A. who got bussed to the ghetto against his and his parents’ wishes in the 60s and 70s.

        Substantive laws are issued and you follow them. If you don’t, you risk paying a price. This is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it’s a good thing. Law is necessary to an orderly civilization. The whole point is that law, today, is no longer designed to keep order but to engineer a progressive welfare democracy . . .

        http://www.worldmag.com/2013/06/another_bakery_sued_for_not_baking_same_sex_wedding_cakes

        http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-facts.php

        So asking how (distributed) sovereignty works in the Cathedral is, in my opinion, a very pertinent question to ask.

        June 29, 2013 at 1:45 pm

      • jamesd127

        > Just ask any white kid in L.A. who got bussed to the ghetto against his and his parents’ wishes in the 60s and 70s.

        Yes, the white kid is at the bottom. But who is at the top? You cannot find them to put their heads on pikes.

        July 11, 2013 at 6:46 am

      • “So who is at the top is issuing the the commands? Find him and kill him. Problem solved.” — This is just childish. No one is saying anything remotely like this. Have you actually followed any of the discussion? It’s not even endorsing the concept of sovereignty, but merely attempting to think it through.

        “It’s more about evangelizing and acting on common beliefs than about issuing or following orders.” — This has no relation whatsoever to what a modern government does. Take one minute instance — setting a minimum wage. How is that not pure command-control? And how is it not entirely typical of modern government action? The administration dictates, and non-obedience is punished. That’s how regulatory bureaucracy works.

        June 29, 2013 at 3:13 pm

  6. @JamesD

    We have a theocracy. Theocracies do not have sovereigns. Supposedly the truth rules, the official truth.

    Now we’re just playing semantics. Whoever enforces the official (or officially unofficial) theological truths and its implicated social policies is, for all purposes, a sovereign.

    June 29, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    • jamesd127

      The word “sovereign” brings to mind a sovereign, a person who makes decisions, who symbolizes, and to some considerable extent, exercises, the power of the state.

      In a theocracy, you cannot find that person. No one will admit to being that person. Xenophon wanted to attack. The priest sacrifices a bull, reads its entrails. The gods say don’t attack. So Xenophon says, sacrifice another bull. Another bull, same result. And another and another. The gods are speaking, the priest denies speaking.

      A cake shop is sued for not baking a same sex marriage cake, and forced into court for months, to face legal bills so enormous that it matters not whether it is convicted or acquitted. Who was it decided to suppress the freedom of speech of cake makers. You cannot find the person responsible.

      June 29, 2013 at 1:58 pm

      • No, but you can find perhaps one or two dozen individuals responsible, from legislators who introduced Civil Rights legislation, to the ACLU lawyers taking up the case. I get your point, that perhaps sovereignty is not the best word to describe how power flows and operates here. But I still think it describes the legislative end.

        June 29, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    • jamesd127

      > Whoever enforces the official (or officially unofficial) theological truths and its implicated social policies is, for all purposes, a sovereign.

      No. Whoever decides the officially unoffical truth is the sovereign. But who decides?

      July 11, 2013 at 6:48 am

  7. jamesd127

    perhaps sovereignty is not the best word to describe how power flows and operates here. But I still think it describes the legislative end.

    The legislators no longer have power. The bureaucrats treat them like poorly behaved children.

    June 29, 2013 at 8:56 pm

    • You’re more of an insider than I am. But from my outsider’s perspective, it seems that they only treat the ones who don’t behave like poorly behaved children, which ensures that most of them behave within the first 90 days of their terms.

      June 29, 2013 at 11:16 pm

      • jamesd127

        Your description is more accurate than mine. A well behaved regulator is treated with superficial respect and indulged in all manner of little things. Should one of the legislator’s constituents complain about some trivial manner, and the legislator pass this complaint along to the bureaucrats, this will be treated as a royal command, and much busywork done.

        Less trivial matters, not so much.

        June 30, 2013 at 3:36 am

  8. Pingback: Scales of Sovereignty (part 1) |

  9. Pingback: The Question of Sovereignty: Part 1 | Pyrrhic Victories

  10. I know this web page provides quality depending content and
    additional material, is there any other web site which presents these data in quality?

    September 21, 2014 at 3:07 am

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s