Dear Canem Malum,

"Sovereign Citizen" is a dichotomy: one can be sovereign or one can be a citizen, but not both simultaneously.

So yes, everyone ought to be able to choose, freely and without coercion, both for themselves and regarding any property they may NATURALLY (as opposed to "legally") own, whether or not to become citizens of a society and whether or not to subject their property(s) to the rules of that society.

What one may not do, however, is to zigzag, one day accepting the benefits of a society then in the next not allowing its police on their property.
Some Americans seem to want to have the cake and eat it too, and that's not on.

Sovereign Citizen could be a dichotomy but it could also be a contradiction. But jurisdictional sovereignty can exist at multiple levels as demonstrated by the hierarchy of society.

Dear Canem Malum,

«But jurisdictional sovereignty can exist at multiple levels as demonstrated by the hierarchy of society.»

Sure, why not?!

Once you enter a society willingly and voluntarily, that society may organise itself into as many levels or hierarchy as it likes.

- All under the assumption of course that you take part in that society out of your own free choice.