First I will answer "succinctly," then I will comment. I hope you read it all.

From BLD:

Sovereignty. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed.

Also:

By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

There is your "succinct" answer.

There is no such thing as "individual Sovereignty" in BLD. It has no meaning really, or rather, there is no meaning to Sovereignty other than "Sovereignty of the Individual."

Not so succinct:

The problem with the succinct answer is that it doesn't actually explain anything. This is a very difficult concept to understand because we have been trained to not understand how a person can be Sovereign. Indeed, most of the definition in BLD is all about how corporate entities (legal fictions) can be sovereign. That includes the first definition, which is their opening line.

They use the phrase "independent state," which sounds like exactly such a corporate entity (the State e.g.) but really, that phrase just means the area over which the Individual entity (legal or Natural) has control, AKA their Jurisdiction. It is in the second definition that it can be really appreciated. Sovereignty is an “uncontrollable power,” in that there is no higher possible control (even theoretically) over some Jurisdiction.

Aside

Some of your questions (and your demand for "succinctness") suggests to me one of three things:

1. I have not been clear enough in what I have said, despite every effort to do so.
2. You are not actually reading what I am saying.
3. You are not reading what I am saying with the intent to understand what I am saying, rather, you are "listening to respond."

I think it has to be one of the second two options because you asked me to clarify:

confirm that the core issue you have here is that the word "Sovereign" was omitted from the Declaration.

I have explained clearly and unequivocally that this was NOT my "core issue" I don't know how many times (6-10?) in this exchange. It is impossible for you to have read what I've written while actually trying to understand it and not have realized that.

You also keep saying things like:

you are getting lost in the words

making long winded points where it is not necessary

You tend to get lost in terminology and splitting the hair to the point where you miss the big picture

From my perspective, I am trying to explain something that my research strongly suggests we have been brainwashed to see differently. I am explaining something that is, from my experience, very difficult to understand because of that brainwashing. Thus I am not being “long winded” (from my perspective) but extremely precise, because it is only with precision (and the precise path of understanding that comes from that) that the brainwashing can be overcome. By being less precise, I would not be able to overcome all the roadblocks that have been put in the way to prevent people from seeing what has happened.

Maybe you are right, but I suggest if you aren’t truly reading to understand, rather than to argue or respond, you are not getting what I am trying to say, and it is within what I am saying that the path out of the brainwashing lies.

Now, obviously that’s not all on you, but overcoming brainwashing is REALLY HARD. Thus I ask for some latitude, and I ask you, if you wish to understand, that you really try to do so, even if it seems like what I’m saying doesn’t appear to be “necessary” or “applicable,” I have my reasons for its inclusion, and they may not be obvious.

First I will answer "succinctly," then I will comment. I hope you read it all.

From BLD:

Sovereignty. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed.

Also:

By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.

There is your "succinct" answer.

There is no such thing as "individual Sovereignty" in BLD. It has no meaning really, or rather, there is no meaning to Sovereignty other than "Sovereignty of the Individual."

Not so succinct:

The problem with the succinct answer is that it doesn't actually explain anything. This is a very difficult concept to understand because we have been trained to not understand how a person can be Sovereign. Indeed, most of the definition in BLD is all about how corporate entities (legal fictions) can be sovereign. That includes the first definition, which is their opening line.

They use the phrase "independent state," which sounds like exactly such a corporate entity (the State e.g.) but really, that phrase just means the area over which the Individual entity (legal or Natural) has control, AKA their Jurisdiction. It is in the second definition that it can be really appreciated. Sovereignty is an “uncontrollable power,” in that there is no higher possible control (even theoretically) over some Jurisdiction.

Aside

Some of your questions (and your demand for "succinctness") suggests to me one of three things:

1. I have not been clear enough in what I have said, despite every effort to do so.
2. You are not actually reading what I am saying.
3. You are not reading what I am saying with the intent to understand what I am saying, rather, you are "listening to respond."

I think it has to be one of the second two options because you asked me to clarify:

confirm that the core issue you have here is that the word "Sovereign" was omitted from the Declaration.

I have explained clearly and unequivocally that this was NOT my "core issue" I don't know how many times (6-10?) in this exchange. It is impossible for you to have read what I've written and actually trying to understand it and not realized that.

You also keep saying things like:

you are getting lost in the words

making long winded points where it is not necessary

You tend to get lost in terminology and splitting the hair to the point where you miss the big picture

From my perspective, I am trying to explain something that my research strongly suggests we have been brainwashed to see differently. I am explaining something that is, from my experience, very difficult to understand because of that brainwashing. Thus I am not being “long winded” (from my perspective) but extremely precise, because it is only with precision (and the precise path of understanding that comes from that) that the brainwashing can be overcome. By being less precise, I would not be able to overcome all the roadblocks that have been put in the way to prevent people from seeing what has happened.

Maybe you are right, but I suggest if you aren’t truly reading to understand, rather than to argue or respond, you are not getting what I am trying to say, and it is within what I am saying that the path out of the brainwashing lies.

Now, obviously that’s not all on you, but overcoming brainwashing is REALLY HARD. Thus I ask for some latitude, and I ask you, if you wish to understand, that you really try to do so, even if it seems like what I’m saying doesn’t appear to be “necessary” or “applicable,” I have my reasons for its inclusion, and they may not be obvious.