>>The question isn't whether or not the consent was genuine, the answer to that is a resounding "yes". The question is "is the person now, 10 years later, a different person such that their prior genuine consent no longer applies"
That goes to the question of whethee the consent was genuine. Consent is not genuine when it is provided on behalf of another party.
>>This question can be rephrased as "Is there a way to re-invent myself as a new legal being and avoid prior obligations and agreements at no consequence to myself?"
A disingenuous leading construction of the question..
And being considered a different person does not allow one to avoid all obligations and agreements that their pass self entered into. All property bounded by past agreements would still be bound, and the vast majority of agreements use property as collateral to compel compliance.
Only self-imposed slavery would be nullified by such an affirmative response to the question.
This has nothing to do with your "freemen-of-the-land" nonsense accusation.
I'd be open to seeing a single court case where someone used the "they are not their past self" argument to get out of their legal obligations.
> Courts will most certainly consider the genuity of the consent a person gave 10 years prior to being foribly confined and made to labor for another.
In the hypothetical, we've already agreed that the consent given was genuine. The question isn't whether or not the consent was genuine, the answer to that is a resounding "yes". The question is "is the person now, 10 years later, a different person such that their prior genuine consent no longer applies"? This question can be rephrased as "Is there a way to re-invent myself as a new legal being and avoid prior obligations and agreements at no consequence to myself?" They are in fact the same question. And courts time and time again have resoundingly answered that question with a no. A group that consistently tries to argue otherwise is freemen of the land. Hence me throwing you in with them, because you're using their (nonsense) arguments. Thankfully we've seen them try those arguments in court before, and they never win.
> I'm suggesting the argument would be accepted by a court, and you've provided no reason to believe it wouldn't.
Let me just repeat that last bit: these arguments have been tried, by the freemen of the land whose comparison you so resent. They never win. Courts have tested and failed these arguments because they are bad arguments.