[RHSeeger]

But the benefit of living in a society is that those people that _cannot_ survive without the society, _can_ with it. They still have the option to live outside society, they'll just perish. And that sucks. But by being part of society and gaining the benefits thereof, you are agreeing to follow it's rules (or suffer the consequences if you do not).

I would not survive away from society due to medical needs. In exchange for being able to acquire the items I need to survive, I follow the constraints of living in that society. But it _is_ a choice. I could choose to go live in the woods without said benefit; and I'd die.

[Detrytus]

But the point of "living in the forrest is not an option" isn't that the person in question is incapable of surviving there. It is that the society claims ownership of the forrest an will punish you for trying to live there. I mean, try sleeping in your own car in California, or some other US states...

That's just the nature of almost any society: they are actively hostile towards such outliers.

[esperent]

To be fair, this philosophical discussion originated in the time of Locke and Hobbes, and back then it was far more viable to go off and live in a forest, especially if you went to America to do it.

[mistrial9]

the societies that grew yes.. there were many others that died. Most of the major countries recognized today in the West were originally warlike and held captives institutionally.

[esperent]

> But the benefit of living in a society is that those people that _cannot_ survive without the society, _can_ with it

Hence why it's a "contract". Both parties benefit. Society gets to exist, the people in it mostly have better lives than they would living alone in a forest. Admittedly, that's a low bar and we could stand to improving things.