Comment: Response

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You're a strange one NowOrNever (see in situ)


"I am trying to suggest that at least some "correct" interpretation of laws are fantasy in that the laws were created in fantasy and are unlawful laws (I'm sure you can wrap your brain around either side of "unlawful laws", so please don't bother)."

It seems we're using "fantasy" in different ways. When I say a legal theory is based in fantasy I mean that it is not based on the law as written as interpreted by original intent. Hence both freeman legal theory and (for example) the prevailing interpretation of the constitution are based in fantasy.

So I'm thinking about three categories: (1) the law as written as interpreted by original intent (what the law actually is), (2) incorrect interpretations of what the law is (e.g. freeman theories or prevailing views of the constitution), and (3) what the law ought to be (which I haven't addressed in this thread).

As for *your* view of fantasy, you're saying that a legal theory based in the law as written as interpreted by original intent can still be fantasy if the law as written is unlawful, by which you mean immoral (e.g. contrary to the non-aggression principle), right? If so, then I understand what you're saying, though I think that's a confusing way of thinking about law, since it blurs the distinction between what the law is and what the law ought to be.

"You also are overstating your own prediction regarding future prevails of the argued theories.
Your prediction can be easily disproved through simply finding a single case where a self proclaimed freeman won his/her way in a court of law."

To my knowledge, there are no such cases. I've never seen any freeman provide any evidence that any freemanite theory has ever succeeded in any actual legal action.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."