[wazoox]

You've got to the Godwin point at impressive speed, kudos.

> If someone doesn't pursue their own interests then by logical necessity they are pursueing interests imposed on them.

You fall for the fallacy that you actually could be free of social influence anyway. This isn't the case; see you've been Ayn-Randed to the bones, for instance. That makes you believe mad things that work against your own interest in the long term. See?

> But what does social obligation mean?

You're born to some family, speaking some language, walking some road, sheltering under some roof someone built, lighten by some power that was brought to you, etc. Are you pretending you don't need anybody else?

[dreamdu5t]

> You fall for the fallacy that you actually could be free of social influence anyway.

No, I never implied that I was free from the forceful influence of the State. Social obligation in the context of the post I was responding to is (I thought) referring to regulation and taxes, the social contract.

> You're born to some family, speaking some language, walking some road, sheltering under some roof someone built, lighten by some power that was brought to you, etc. Are you pretending you don't need anybody else?

I'm not pretending that I don't need anybody else. I just don't find moral legitimacy in being compelled to do things by force without my consent.

Private roads aren't allowed to exist, I pay for my own shelter presumably built by people who were already paid to build it, I pay for my power by the company that provides it, and language I acquired by picking it up from others at who provided it freely.

[wazoox]

> I just don't find moral legitimacy in being compelled to do things by force without my consent.

By force? Were you subject to violence? You're free to head into the wilderness, live from your hunting and start your own civilisation on your own, perfectly free; others did. However it proves more cumbersome and less pleasant than simply living in our oppressive society.

I'm perfectly happy with paying taxes, and having roads, policemen, garbage collectors and street lights. What's the opposite stance?

> Private roads aren't allowed to exist

How so? The path going across my terrain is as private as possible. However private roads aren't really practical. It's commonly known that infrastructure work in general is less efficient when not a monopoly, and so far the only working monopoly is the state (monopoly of violence most saliently).

[OstiaAntica]

Private roads are very, very difficult to build in modern America. The biggest issue is that people traveling on a private road are not allowed by the government to sign away their right to sue, and the liability for the private road operator is enormous.

Other issues are the thicket of regional planning regulations. There's really not truly private property any more, roadbuilding of any type is subject to the state and local political process.

[wazoox]

I'm afraid you're confusing a symptom (the over-complexity of our society) with a cause. My advice : read the always fresh and mind-blowing Joseph A. Tainter's "Collapse of complex societies".

[clavalle]

As a resident of Central Texas there are 3 privately owned toll roads within 5 miles of my house, all built in the past 10 years.

[pyre]

   I just don't find moral legitimacy in
   being compelled to do things by force
   without my consent.

So, you're arguing in favor of anarchy?

[georgieporgie]

You've got to the Godwin point at impressive speed, kudos.

Please drop the snark.