I'm digressing slightly here but there are some interesting parallels regarding assumed consent via use of language and this is kind of the opposite direction:
There was a thing going around about 10 years ago called the Freemen On The Land movement which I would say is not a cult (too disorganised and disbanded) but has many similarities.
The whole premise of their stance was that written laws are drafted in such a way as to confuse people into giving consent. For example that statutory laws don't apply to you unless you consent to them. Likewise a police officer can't arrest you unless you consent (or "contract" with them) by saying you understand the charges (i.e. you consent to stand under their authority and give your name, address and DoB). Please don't test that one out - you might get tazered or worse! Likewise if you are called to appear in court it's just an invitation that only applies if you have consented according to them.
This has been used to justify all kinds of criminal behavior (no doubt cases where people assume the age of consent - whatever it is where you reside - doesn't apply to them) and I wonder if it attracted some of the same personality types that are also drawn to LGATs.
Sadly the pioneer of this movement in the UK (John Harris who actually seemed like a genuine, decent guy) committed suicide after he realised the monster that he'd unleashed.
[rationalwiki.org]
There was a thing going around about 10 years ago called the Freemen On The Land movement which I would say is not a cult (too disorganised and disbanded) but has many similarities.
The whole premise of their stance was that written laws are drafted in such a way as to confuse people into giving consent. For example that statutory laws don't apply to you unless you consent to them. Likewise a police officer can't arrest you unless you consent (or "contract" with them) by saying you understand the charges (i.e. you consent to stand under their authority and give your name, address and DoB). Please don't test that one out - you might get tazered or worse! Likewise if you are called to appear in court it's just an invitation that only applies if you have consented according to them.
This has been used to justify all kinds of criminal behavior (no doubt cases where people assume the age of consent - whatever it is where you reside - doesn't apply to them) and I wonder if it attracted some of the same personality types that are also drawn to LGATs.
Sadly the pioneer of this movement in the UK (John Harris who actually seemed like a genuine, decent guy) committed suicide after he realised the monster that he'd unleashed.
[rationalwiki.org]