AU9913 on Nostr: The basic premise is flawed. I do lease land, but I also own land. The land I own ...

The basic premise is flawed. I do lease land, but I also own land. The land I own isn't leased from the federal, state or county govt that claim authority over it. They change laws without my consent constantly (this is the equivalent of changing the terms of the lease), if that happened on my leased land I would sue the owner for violating the terms of the contract. Before you say, "oh you agreed on changing lease terms via democratic process by leasing land from the federal govt, you just claim you own it." Well then you'd have to establish the right of that entity that claims ownership has authority over the land they're leasing. There is no such document showing the federal government owns the land I live on today. They may have owned it at one point, but they have since transfered that ownership to someone who transfereding to another person until you get down the line to me. They don't own my land and I actually lease it. That initial premise being incorrect breaks the entire rest of the argument.

Also if you force someone into a contract under duress, that contract is void.