Sovereignty stuff and other stuff

This is one of my favorite kind of subject, stuff and other stuff,
so I'll jump into that with, And so,,,,

On this subject, we have to inquire if sovereignty begins with either
the individual or God, then, well, how is it possible for a
"sovereign nation " to oppress its citizens.

This is a very good question and I suspect it is a question which
has encouraged many  arguments, but I really have to
suggest, that may be aside the point of how can that be possible?
What is the mechanism in our social structures which allow this
kind of thing to occur?  What human behaviors are we looking
for which allow for this situation?

Well, there is no doubt about it happening because we only have
to reflect on quite a bit of historical record that suggests it has
been an event which occurs with some significant frequency
and beyond that we have only to reflect on the significantly strong
suggestion that national sovereignty exists in fact to protect
the citizens, to a very great degree. 

So we have created organizations to protects us which in many cases
end up oppressing us in various ways.

This is an argument against creating international control on
national organizations, since that would create perhaps a
greater potential for oppressive behaviors.  This is also in
accord with an argument from reducing the " power " in
national organizations as well.  I am not particularly encouraging
this argument because it really doesn't get to the heart of the
issue about the specific behavior which allows this situation
to develop or persist.

Now we are facing considerable difficulties I believe as
a result of these kinds of forces and so figuring this
out is of serious concern for the present.

So I just want to go back to what I have previously suggested
that sovereignty begins with the individual and ideally will
radiate from that point so that the individual then might
anticipate some attitudes and effect radiating back at
more expanding levels.  This would suggest that local organizations
are key in preventing larger organizations from implementing or
contemplating such efforts or implementing oppressive
activities.

And of course we have the highly significant issue that there may
be more that one perspective on what those " oppressive " actions
or behaviors might involve.  So that means that for example
two groups may both believe that the measures they suggest will
" reduce " these kinds of oppressive actions but that may
strongly disagree about what actions need to be taken, ending
in the situation that they find each other to be the actual ' cause ',
now of these oppression s.  Yikes.   Difficult.  In a way you
might call it " fun with mirrors ".

At any rate this is an intriguing but complex issue,
which may need further examination and inquiry.
And maybe you can call it " fun with mirrors ".