h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've now seen a few youtube videos shot be self-righteous s, male and female who seem to have come to some odd conclusions about the law.

Specifically, they seem to think that there are, actually, very few actual "laws", and that instead the majority of what the police will arrest you for are in fact "acts" and "statutes", which they appear to think they have the option of "not consenting" to, as "free men/women", "of the land". The dumb hippy in the video below even seems to think that the Admiralty are somehow relevant.

Fundamentally, they seem to be persisting in the delusion that the majority of the law doesn't apply to them, that if they don't consent to be arrested then they can't be arrested (), and that they have something to gain by backchatting police officers on duty. Additionally, they seem to think that they can drive a car around at any speed they choose and the police can't stop them, ask them for documentation or identification, and if they don't cooperate, arrest them.

Of course, when their delusion is tested in the fiery crucible of reality, they come away disappointed, and a good thing too - I'd hate to live in the kind of anarchy they seem to think should prevail, where people could just go about their business regardless of what they've done if they don't consent to be arrested.

My questions are two, and they are these:

1. Where do they get the idea that the law doesn't apply to them?
2. Are they, on ANY level, even slightly, right?

Video: hippy has it demonstrated to her forcefully that, hey, y'know what, they CAN arrest you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ELxWnstCJOU

A little light googling later, and I've found an extremely good explanation:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

I particularly like this:
"Freeman methods fail to understand that the law derives its authority from the fact that the state has the means and the will to use force to impose it. You can argue that the authorities have no jurisdiction over you, and you can choose not to recognise their authority, but as long as the authorities have force to back up their rules they can enforce sanctions against you. Freemen would argue that this would be unlawful imprisonment — but at the end of the day you'd still be in jail"

I think the idea of Common Law is that there were lots of traditions in the UK which didn't get all get written down as laws, because there were just so many of them. But if it could be reasonably demonstrated that this was the way things always were done, they could be considered to be Common Law and therefore legal.

For example, in the past not everybody got married by going to a church and being registered. They just lived together, but considered themselves to be married. So such people now can still be considered to be Common Law husband and wife, and have some of the rights of married people who were officially registered.

But I think such laws are gradually being tracked down and covered by actual laws and statute, and the number of things you can now do legally which are officially outside the law is getting less and less.

Camping on other people's land may be allowed, but I very much doubt that driving at speed is allowed just because people have done it since time immemorial.

That's a great site.

This lawyer says it's all nonsense. Just occasionally, you might try an old document to test it's validity - see recent use of Habeas Corpus versus anti-terrorism legislation - but not if you can't find anything more modern.

In fact, even if you did find a loophole resulting from ancient law, it's hard to get a court to uphold it, because it's messy and nearly always superceded.

And of course, most legal systems explicitly got rid of this kind of ancient law via codified or continental law systems.

sprout

"such people now can still be considered to be Common Law husband and wife, and have some of the rights of married people who were officially registered"

Really? What rights do you believe a common law spouse to hold? Because my understanding of it is that in England at least it's entirely meaningless. The benefit system recognises "cohabiting couples" for the calculations of means testing, but that's about it. When you split up the courts aren't interested, and you've no rights to visit or even be told if your CLS is in hospital, say.

That you-tube video is amazing...

What planet is that woman on???

My personal favourite bit is at 05:43 or so, where the otherwise entirely professional and commendably patient officer ALMOST (but not quite) manages to keep a straight face. It's a heroic effort.

Seriously, though...there is (and should be) a healthy tension between a) what people agree amongst themselves is right and b) what the state decrees is lawful.

As you've quoted:

'Freeman methods fail to understand that the law derives its authority from the fact that the state has the means and the will to use force to impose it'

I'm sure we can all think of other nations - and possibly even are own - where laws that some believe are unjust have been imposed by force.

But as Noam Chomsky said:

'Power is not legitimating'

Just because something can be imposed by force, it doesn't make it legitimate.

I haven't seen the YouTube (no streaming at work) and am quite prepared to accept that the people in it are hippy nutters. *However* on a wider point we should be prepared to question where are laws come from, what they mean and what effect they have. It's not as simple as 'The Law's the Law' - not even in a democracy.

An interesting case is that of Stephen Gough, 'The Naked Rambler'. Unhinged and, frankly, dull though he may be, does anyone genuinely *mind* if he wanders around in the nip? Six years in jail for failing to see things quite the same way as the law?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/23/naked-rambler-prison

I am *not* endorsing anarchy (in the popular 'anything goes' sense). However, arguably there's a tension here between the Common Law system whereby law is defined by what the people en masse think works to meet agreed principles and Roman/Napoleonic law whereby Everything Needs A Rule. 'That which is not expressly forbidden is compulsory'. But does life work algorithmically or heuristically?

Edward - I think the major problem with the woman's ideas is that she's picking and choosing which 'laws' she wishes to accept and apply as it benefits her at any particular moment...

If you refuse to acknowledge there may be a speeding law then a logical extension would be that you would refuse to acknowledge any law requiring vehicle tax, insurance and MOT certificates...

And of course, general taxation...

If you push this to its logical conclusion, if the police stopped a drunken driver without insurance, tax or an MOT on their vehicle, she would say that unless he has caused damage to property or person then he should be allowed to go on his way... If he then mows down a child five minutes later then he should be punished, but the child should be left on the side of the road to die (no national health service as it's paid for by illegal taxation), no insurance, etc.

I'm not at all disagreeing. An element of good order is essential to a civilised society. But we should be clear that this order may be imposed without consent. Even in a democracy, we decide, by force of majority, what will be done, as opposed agreeing what ought to be done.

Mostly it doesn't matter. The two align. Sometimes it might.

In this case, the principles of good order suggest that driving should be regulated. I have no problem with imposing my will on dissenters. *But that is what we're doing*. We are forcibly restricting people's freedom to act. Obviously.

I'm at work, so I can't watch the video, but I do have a degree of familiarity with the beliefs you're talking about. I work in the Criminal Justice System and have seen and heard about a few of these cases.

I can't say too much due to confidentiality issues and the Civil Service code, but I can tell you they write very interesting letters!

The last one I saw referred to himself as "John of the family Smith" rather than John Smith (obviously, that wasn't his real name) and signed the letter something like "Without vexation, ill will or frivolity, John of the family Smith."

He also referred to the Magna Carta at one point to bolster his argument. There were references to Admiralty Courts which I didn't follow and his refusal to accept that he was "the legal fiction known as a person".

The Magna Carta was when King John was forced to cede his control of the country to some rich and well-armed landowners, wasn't it?

Yup. And secured the rights of the nobility to their share of any eels caught by their serfs in the Thames.

Basically it's all LARP taken way too seriously.

The Magna Carta that stuck though was issued about 100 years later though wasn't it?
As I understand it, King John refused to accept Magna Carta the moment the Barons got on their horses and were out of earshot.
I think John had to die before it actually became law that could be realistically enforced.

I love the idea of people still thinking it and other outdated stuff can still apply though.

Good luck to 'em. Hope they're not applying for any important jobs at the time though?
(problem with authority? naaah )

If you want to disobey the law properly, you've got to do it the American way. In the depths of Montana (or somewhere), there's a group who claim that they get nothing from the American government so they have declared themselves independent. Doing this properly, they have 24-hour surveillance on the borders of their land and machine gun emplacements in case the American army comes over the hill.

Problems with authority might be one way of putting it.

Self Importance is another.

Common Law marriages in Canada are given 'equal' status
in Canada. Marriage law is a provincial jurisdiction and
each of the ten provinces have slightly different rules in
regard to property settlements, child custody and support,
etc.

I can't speak for the other nine but here in Nova Scotia
a couple living 'common law' were considered the equal of
a legally married couple after 5 years when I was a child.
This applied to such legal aspects as shared title of autos,
property, income tax deductions for dependents, medical
power of attorney, visitation and inheritance rights.

It later was reduced to two years when I was in my twenties
but it still seemed safe to live with a woman if you abandon
her within 24 months. But I have heard that it was recently
reduced to six months.

That means is you live with someone for just six months they
can demand division of property and ongoing support at the
same rates as a legally married spouse.

~jwf~

A friend of mine was abandoned by his actually, legally married wife after about 18 months of marriage (for one of his best mates - nice ) - she had no right to his properties or anything as they hadn't been married long enough.
Sounds like your Novia Scotian laws are a bit draconian on that front.

~jwf~ it's the same at this end of the country. I've heard of one colleague of mine who buys his 'sig oth' a short holiday every six months minus a day or two. He maintains that doing that nullifies the law. I find it amusing that his partner hasn't clued in, apparently.