And on your actual points:
"1) Actually, yes, they do. Remember "leaving" means no use of money. How much you have is irrelevant, since that's all benefits derived from the society, so it all stays behind."
If this is true, point me to somewhere I can leave. And point me to a way for me to get there without spending money in transactions. It's impossible, therefore your claim has no basis. Furthermore, you can't argue that someone can leave at any point if you are simultaneously arguing that someone owes something to society, because debts aren't just abandoned and go away.
"2) you "signed" a contract when you decided to partake in the benefits society offers. As long as you do, you have obligations."
The crucial flaw in the argument is as follows:
I NEVER made that choice. The benefits were thrust upon me.
The state of Oklahoma gave me an education, but that doesn't mean I owe it anything. If that were the case, then all the people leaving the state after they've achieved education are abandoning a debt they "owe" this state.
"You owe your share of taxes, for example, to pay for the force that underwrites your property and your life."
Property wasn't invented by government. Neither was life. These are concepts that occur in nature. Government arbitrates property and defends life from foreign invasion that is simultaneously a threat to the government. The extent I will concede is that citizens need to pay taxes, but that doesn't mean I view it as a happy process everyone should enjoy and be grateful about. It's a necessary evil, an immoral act of government that is justified because of its necessity, and the harm done should be limited. This is not, however, the same as citizens owing the government labor.
"3) You can refuse the $100. If you take it, you've accepted a bid. That's a contract. Offer and acceptance, that's all it takes under US contract law."
And, amazingly, I recognize your right to refuse to do labor that I demanded just because I wanted you to do certain labor. The same right is not one that would be afforded me if the government compels me to do certain forms of labor. If I didn't choose it, and I didn't agree to it, what right is there to enforce that sort of thing on me?
"4) If you want to refuse, do. If you don't, you have obligations because you participated. You're perfectly happy to take advantage of the education, and food and resources society provides. Of course, you want to take and then refuse to contribute. (See "Ungrateful brat" above)"
What do I have the right to refuse? An education I was legally obligated to complete? Defense of a military that predates my own life?
"5) Actually, yes, society gets to tell people rather a lot. Many in our society want to tell gay people they can't marry or love who they love, for example. You can't legally marry your daughter. You can't own slaves. There are a LOT of personal relationships that society tells people. My wife can legally adopt my kids, but only in California (and maybe five other states). Otherwise, she can't. If their mother and I died, my wife would have ZERO legal rights, even though she's been a major part of raising them since they were two and four. So, yeah, society tells people rather a lor about their personal relationships. your statement is simply facutally wrong."
And, if you're following my logic, you would know I feel that such compelled and forced relationships are morally wrong. And before you hop on and claim I'm defending slavery (sad that I can see you realistically trying to launch that attack on me), that does not follow from the consistency of my argument. Forcing someone else to perform labor for you against their will is morally wrong. If society deems slavery is okay, that doesn't make it okay to subjugate certain classes of people to it.
"And yes, society tells you also what you do and don't owe. All economic relationships are underpinned by law. You aren't held financially responsible for your parents, typically, but you are held financially responsible for your offspring."
1) If I borrow $100 from a bank, me owing them $100 isn't because society says I should owe that money, it's because I made an arrangement with the bank and agreed personally that I owe $100. You, personally, have no say in that.
2) Personal familial relationships are better defined emotionally than financially. Parents care for children (and vice versa) financially because there is a natural emotional bond between them that develops even further over the lifetime of the child. Under this scenario, the parent and child CHOOSE to care for each other, which has occurred for millennia.
"Finally, I sure as hell get to devalue the choices people make. If they let their kids die because they prefer to "rely on prayer" and can and absofuckinglutely will demean, dismiss and devalue their disgusting stupid religion. You better believe it. Neonazis (even the "nice ones" you like to defend) are in for a lot of devaluing of the choices they make. So yeah, again, factually wrong."
I'll take responsibility for this one (because my choice of words has value), I should have defined what I said better. The situations described aren't the devaluing of choices the way I define it. Rather, the choices define the character of the individual. If a person that makes choices that cause direct harm to others, to devalue the choice made would be to devalue the consequences of it, and not display the role of the character of the person who made the choice. If someone makes the choice to kill people, there is gravity to that. The value isn't good value, but there is value. And that value points to the person who made that choice being a horrible person.
Math: Invented or Discovered?
)
)
)
)
)