Truly free individuals are not required to do anything for the benefit of others.

"You joined with the civil society, you have benefited in some way from the civil society, and now that the civil society has changed its rules, you, as a member of that society also much change." I don't disagree with that, but it is, nevertheless, an unfortunate indicator of how freedom is a mythe in our society. You're probably all for it, because every rule change seems to take us further from individual freedom and closer to socialism. "The only matter of consent is that you may leave, or you may decide to be truly free at the risk of becoming a criminal in that civil society. If it changes, you may change, leave, or become criminal." Again, I don't disagree with that, but it is, nevertheless, an unfortunate indicator of how freedom is a mythe in our society. "You do no justice to this society when you whine and complain about it asking too much of you, after it has already given you so much." I totally disagree. You are essentially recommending that we stifle our right to protest in response to injustices on the part of the majority. "The state of nature must be fiercely maintained" I wish you believed that, but this statement is contrary to your philosophy. I submit that I am the one who believes this, and that you do not. I want members of society to remain as close to the state of nature as possible (as close to being "truly free" as possible) by limiting government to the protection of only the most basic rights, freedoms and protections. This would offer adequate protection while ensuring minimal intrusion. You want to offer a system that gives people MORE than that to which they are naturally entitled. "Dispense of responsibility, and in the moments when you know no fear, you may taste freedom." –John Day Yep. I agree. We disagree only on HOW MUCH responsibility one has toward his fellow man. I say it is limited only to respecting his fellow man's basic rights in exchange for the same. That is all. It stops there. No law of nature requires you give any of your property up so it can be given directly to another individual. Again, I'm not in favor of anarchy, but just the bare minimum government would require to guaranty natural rights-- not to create new ones, as you do by mentioning that one of man's natural rights is that of "health." Unless you are medically treating yourself, this right would require another individual to tend to you. "You and most other individuals who claim to be libertarians are selfish fools." This is just mean, so I wanted to point that out. "you think it is unreasonable to have to give back a portion of your success" Nope. As I mentioned I have no problem giving up that which is needed to uphold my natural rights." "As you attempt to weaken your society, and make it closer to "truly free," you are enabling the loss of all of your rights and freedoms that are currently maintained by the society." You imply that more freedom for the individual weakens society. If so, it would follow that less freedom for the individual would result in a stronger society. I thought you were a liberal. This philosophy reeks of communism. "eventually individuals … are going to demand and eventually will receive a government that pays greater attention to the other tenants of the natural rights, the life and health parts specifically." Oh, they already have-- by majority mob rule. They've even gone beyond asking government to pay greater attention to their natural rights. They have enlisted government to improve upon "natural rights," to include the right to another's time, energy, property and services.