by Freeman Stephen » Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:58 am
The basic premise of freemen on the land is that no one is governed without their consent. If you feel your governance is legitimate i will guarantee that you contracted to be governed even though you likely believe you had no choice. Having no choice about such contracts make the contracts "illegal" - that is a breach of government statutes - but also "unlawful" - that is contrary to what is just.
The name freeman on the land comes from a time when there was no state like power in the americas but there were westerners who had travelled there establishing a status more akin to native americans than national citizens of a particular state. These guys had a special legal status and its thought that anyone who can terminate their contracts with the state can enjoy this same status. This is countered by a belief that once you make a contract with the state, you are enslaved to it for life, and even in some cases, a belief that you are bound to obey the legislative rules of a state even if you haven't contracted with it or were even aware that there was such a thing as a state making rules you had no knowledge of. The attitudes of many state employees in all branches suggest that the state itself may believe it has the right to legislate unlawfulness. It is this kind of attitude that is abusing many to turn to lawful rebellion, total non compliance and freeman on the land in the hope that the state will return to obeying the law. This makes little sense to those who enforce government rules and call it law because its hard for them to comprehend themself as the lawbreakers when they have been trained to believe they are protecting the law by incarcerating innocent people who live without a care about the latest government policy but always live just lives not ignorant of the law but of legislation.