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

So far as the points where you think you are in agreement with me are concerned, it is unfortunate that the members of our civil society have chosen to build a myth about their government rather than accept the true meaning behind it. A free society is not a society of complete individual freedom. Yet children hark in the hallways of their schools, "It's a free country," to justify doing what they want, and usually only when it breaks a rule, or harms another. Political philosophy, especially pertaining to the civil society, social contract, and usually anything else that involves notions of citizenship, responsibility, service, and sacrifices. One of the hardest things to do when conducting an education in philosophy is stamping out the assumptions made by the student prior to their education in order to ensure a broad understanding of the issue. "Freedoms" are not a myth in your society. I noted many freedoms that you are allowed to enjoy specifically because of your society. Absolute freedom can never exist, and never will exist, in any society. If this is the freedom you long for, you may likely only find it in death or insanity. "You are essentially recommending that we stifle our right to protest in response to injustices on the part of the majority." And to where you disagree with me, I think you've misunderstood me. I do not ask you to stifle your protest, I ask you to better direct your protest. You do not even live in a society of majority rule. You do live in a society where majority votes often decides who leaders, however very little business at the local, county, state and especially the national level gets done by general referendum. Most of the affairs of every level of government you remain ignorant of. You complain of a march towards socialism, in spite of evidence that suggests contrary. Socialism does not threaten your life, health, liberty, or possessions, capitalism does. The majority does not attempt to hurt you, the few who you have never met who conspire behind closed doors with your elected officials hurt you. Some of the smarter ones even convince you a terrible idea is grand and glorious. Some of them just convince your elected officials, and when they can't be convinced, they're bribed and if that doesn't work, they're compelled with fear or replaced. "The state of nature must be fiercely maintained" I feel as if when you lifted that phrase that I may understand how the Bible feels when it's taken out of context. The "State of Nature" is not a civil society. But the State of Nature too must be maintained. Locke probably meant state as in a kind of political organization, not as in how nature is doing, or a natural state of things. I was explaining that even without the bonds required by a civil society, that in the State of Nature an individual is still not free of obligation. I told you a scenario of how if the enforcement of the state of nature slips, a social contract, such as despotism typically forms. You're asking for a civil society to enforce as much of the Natural Law as possible. In a civil society with rapid transportation, communication, and such a variety and high frequency of trade, regulation is required. If you look at American history during the 19th century, you will see hundreds of examples where new federal laws had to be written in order for the civil society to remain civil. There are many ways, and I mean many ways possible to cheat others out of their natural rights of life, health, liberty and possession. "Naturally entitled." Is very loaded phrase. Thinking like that leads to notions of predestination, or the favor of the gods, and any number of things that people have used to rationalize why they are a king. Also, these are not "my philosophies." I am a student of philosophy, not a believer of philosophy. In Greek, philosophy means a "Love of Wisdom." I take that term literally. While Socrates wrote nothing himself, I learned from him in is lack of satisfaction with answers. However, this doesn't mean I don't understand the answers. "Dispense of responsibility, and in the moments when you know no fear, you may taste freedom." –John Day I think you misunderstand, its "dispense of responsibility", not "be less responsible." In isolation, complete and total is the only time an individual can be "truly free." Again, the "Law of Nature" exists in the "State of Nature." The "State of Nature" however requires participation in maintaining the natural law. The quote means that to be free means that to be free means to have no responsibility, and to be without fear. I have mentioned no part of the Natural Law that Locke himself did not create. In its originality, it was "Life, health, liberty, and possessions." I didn't just make it up. It's been in writing for almost four hundred years now. So, you've just been reading the wrong books. What you think the social contract ought to be is "these people are going to enforce the Laws of Nature for me so I don't have to worry about it." The social contract is the ascension from the State of Nature to a civil society where we put all that barbarism of mobs and murders without trial behind us. You want the State of Nature, but you yourself are too lazy to want to maintain the Natural Law. "You and most other individuals who claim to be libertarians are selfish fools." It might be mean, but it's true. I truth does not always have to be polite. I explained why it is foolish to be a Libertarian, and I will explain again shortly. Considering you frequently accuse me of socialism or communism after I explained to you that I'm a pragmatist, and after I give you a specific example of how I would construct a tyranny or an oligarchy out of the state of nature, you still think I'm a proponent of socialism or communism. At least my statement is accurate. "You imply that more freedom for the individual weakens society." Lifting part of my argument again… I listed many ways in which your society provides freedoms. What you are asking for is a return to the State of Nature, with perhaps the minimal amount of participation involved by the average person. This will lead to an arise of new governments and social contracts. Warlords will be born, and maintain themselves by projects of terror, construction, or enforcing new laws or rules. It's exactly what happened in Afghanistan when they returned briefly to the "State of Nature" after the Taliban lost control. If you make it possible for people to oppose the social contract, if you make it possible for them to become a defacto provider, dictator, commander, president, or whatever, you're enabling the destruction of a society that you belong to. Trust me, if there's anything I understand it is how to utilize a power vacuum. Your belief in mob rule being in opposition to your "Natural Rights" is silly. Mobs are almost always led and encouraged, and for the last thirty years your "rights" have been more threatened by people you likely supported. The funny thing about political philosophy is that if you treat it like a science, and don't allow God to be a philosophical answer the statement "We have rights because we are created with them" becomes very silly. The only way that you or anyone else has rights is if you fight for them. In the last eight years the Bill of Rights has been categorically weakened by the Bush Administration to the point where Cruel and Unusual is A-Okay, The Writ of Haebeus Corpus is no longer important if someone decides your dangerous, you are no longer promised a trial as a non-military personal member, and the 9th amendment was completely shat upon, and that's the really important on. There is no such thing as a truly free individual, not in the State of Nature, and Not in a Civil Society. Therefore everyone is obliged to maintain some part of the social order.