Your Legal Alter Ego

Exploring maritime law, legal identity, and the hidden divide between your living self and the corporate entity the system sees.

Most people aren’t aware that the legal systems we interact with every day don’t primarily operate under what’s commonly called “the law of the land,” or common law. Instead, they largely function under maritime law—also known as the law of the sea. This distinction isn’t just theoretical. It shapes how authority, responsibility, contracts, and accountability actually work in practice.

I started paying attention to this through personal experience, particularly after several years of friction with landlords. Not because anyone was necessarily acting in bad faith, but because I kept running into the same underlying issue: people often misunderstand what they’re dealing with legally, and who is actually being held accountable.

When you shake hands, make agreements, or enter into arrangements—formal or informal—it’s worth asking a simple but uncomfortable question: who or what is actually involved here from a legal standpoint?

The Strawman and the Two Identities

I’ve recently been reading Tesla & The Cabbage Patch Kids by Guy Anderson. Near the end of the book, it briefly touches on a concept often referred to as the “strawman.” Considering the importance of knowing this in the current landscape I felt the need to reemphasize the concept in an article—for awareness, and maybe just as a reminder once more.

The strawman refers to a legal identity that exists separately from you as a living, breathing human being. This idea is often dismissed as a conspiracy theory (go check out Wikipedia if you like), but the distinction itself undeniably exists in practice. You can see it everywhere—on birth certificates, driver’s licenses, bank cards, legal documents—where your name is written in full uppercase letters. That full uppercase name represents a legal entity.

This legal entity can open bank accounts, take out loans, sign contracts, get married, hold debt, and even go bankrupt. A flesh-and-blood human can’t do any of those things. Only the legal entity can.

The confusion arises when people assume these two are the same. They most definitely aren’t.

Consent, Language, and Maritime Law

Maritime law operates hierarchically and relies heavily on consent, affirmation, and agreement—often established subtly through language. You can see this clearly in everyday interactions with authority, especially in routine situations that most people don’t think twice about.

A common example is a traffic stop. When a police officer approaches a car, the first question is rarely a direct accusation. Instead, it’s often something like, “Do you know why I stopped you today?” or “How fast do you think you were going back there?” On the surface, these seem like neutral questions. In practice, they invite you to adopt the officer’s framing of the situation.

By answering, you’re implicitly acknowledging that there was a valid reason for the stop and that you’re operating under the rules being enforced. You’re no longer just exchanging information—you’re participating in a predefined legal narrative. Even responses that attempt to justify or explain still accept the premise of jurisdiction and authority.

Another common phrasing is, “I clocked you at 15 kilometers over the limit—does that sound right?” Agreement, clarification, or even disagreement still reinforces the same framework. The interaction proceeds not because force is applied, but because consent is established through language.

This isn’t necessarily malicious or deceptive. It’s simply how the system functions. Maritime law depends on acknowledgment and affirmation. Once you engage within that linguistic structure, you’re operating under that legal framework—often without realizing that consent has already been given by the way the conversation unfolds.

Even the physical structure of authority reflects this hierarchy. Courtrooms, for example, mirror a ship’s chain of command: the elevated judge, the ordered layout, the clear separation of roles. The symbolism is subtle, but once you notice it, it becomes difficult to ignore.

This is fundamentally different from common law, which is remarkably simple. At its core, common law has one rule: do no harm, direct or indirect. No hierarchy. No layered abstractions. Just responsibility and, well, common sense.

Birth Registration and Being Treated as an Asset

From the moment a birth certificate is issued, a legal entity is created and registered. That entity is recognized by the state and becomes part of a broader administrative and economic system. It can be tracked, insured, taxed, fined, and held liable.

In that sense, the legal entity is treated as an asset. Not in any moral sense, but in a purely functional one. It exists to be managed within a system of rules and obligations. If it doesn’t behave according to those external definitions, it’s corrected or punished.

What’s rarely explained is that this registration doesn’t define who you are—it defines what the system interacts with. Most people grow up believing the demands placed on the legal entity are personal, existential demands. Over time, that confusion creates fear, stress, and a sense of being trapped.

Seeing the separation clearly doesn’t make the system disappear. Much better, it changes how you relate to it.

Contracts, Handshakes, and Where Things Go Wrong

Under common law, goodwill, trust, and handshakes make sense. Acting in good faith and doing no harm is often enough. Problems arise when legal enforcement enters the picture—lawyers, courts, or formal mechanisms shift the interaction from personal agreements to accountable legal entities. Suddenly, you’re no longer dealing with people, but with a structure that requires clearly defined obligations.

Informal agreements can feel solid—until they aren’t. Without formal agreements between legal entities, there’s often very little to stand on. Many people are surprisingly undereducated about this, which leads to frustration, resentment, and conflict that could have been avoided with clearer boundaries.

This doesn’t mean contracts or rules are inherently bad. They simply operate in a different framework. Rules tend to multiply, demand more, and sometimes lose logical foundation, which is when they become oppressive. Common law doesn’t have this problem. It’s complete in its simplicity: do no harm, act in good faith, and rely on mutual trust. Understanding which framework you’re in—and when you’re crossing into another—makes a significant difference in how exposed or protected you actually are.

You Are Not Your Legal Entity

The most important distinction is also the simplest: who you are is independent of how your legal entity operates.

The legal entity owns the bank account, the apartment, the car, the computer, the clothes. It signs contracts and holds obligations. The flesh-and-blood human doesn’t need those things—it only experiences what comes from them.

You eat the food. You live the moments. You gain the experiences.

Once this separation is clear, the system becomes less psychologically overwhelming. The legal entity can take risks, fail, recover, or even collapse without that meaning that it is the end of you. Bankruptcy, debt, or contractual failure stop feeling like existential threats and start looking like structural events within a system.

This perspective makes planning easier and fear a hell of a lot more manageable. It doesn’t remove responsibility—but it puts it where it belongs. It opens the door to operating within the system without being psychologically owned by it.

Practical Ways to Stay in Control

To help anyone make this grounded and usable, here are four practical steps to maintain clarity and control between yourself and your legal entity:

1. Mentally separate identity from obligation

   Remind yourself regularly that debts, contracts, and legal responsibilities belong to the legal entity—not to your intrinsic worth or survival as a human being.

2. Be intentional with agreements

   Know when you’re operating on trust and goodwill, and when you’re stepping into legal territory. Once accountability matters, make sure it’s clearly defined between legal entities.

3. Watch language and consent

   Pay attention to how questions and agreements are framed. Language often determines jurisdiction. Don’t rush to confirm assumptions you don’t (fully) agree with.

4. Use the system without internalizing it

   Let the legal entity do its job—earn, spend, contract, comply—but don’t confuse its successes or failures with who you are. Your role is to live the experience, not become the paperwork.

Closing Thoughts

You don’t need to reject the system entirely to stop being trapped by it. You can still work, pay bills, and function in society while maintaining a clear internal boundary. The law of the land—do no harm—still works. Real human connection still matters. A handshake can still mean something (even more so now that you’re aware of this).

But clarity is power. Once you understand that the legal entity exists and that it is not you, the world becomes less overwhelming and less frustrating. From there, shaping a different way of living—individually and collectively—becomes not only possible, but surprisingly practical.

---

---

Crossing the Threshold

On January 18th, from 19:00 to 20:30 CET, we’re hosting our first webinar: Crossing the Threshold. It’s about moving beyond the familiar 3D script into a grounded, autonomous way of living—how to truly hold yourself in that space.

We won’t dissect this article directly, but the themes overlap. If this piece resonated, this session will take it deeper. Tickets are available: thenexusformula.com/products/crossing-the-threshold

See you there!