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

I am boxed in by the topic of this debate, so if you will humor me I would like to expand my con argument into the following, "Truly free individuals are not required to do anything for the benefit of others in a free society." I think it matches your argument and it would actually allow me to better debate you. You'll see through the following argument why I feel this way. Truly free individuals cannot be members of any society. A common misunderstanding of John Locke's Second Treatise on Government is that the Natural Law, which he described as "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one : And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." From this phrase, Thomas Jefferson lifted the statement, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," which has replaced the true law of nature that was wholly described by Locke in the first chapter of his Second Treatise John Locke goes on to further explain the conduct and carrying out of this natural law. Crime and punishment in the state of nature comes from each person being their own magistrate. It assumes that reason governs all individuals, which would be pretty fantastic, and it also assumes that if one persons life is ended, that another person will take it upon themselves to provide that punishment."Every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from everybody, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal" John Locke goes on to further explain, "By the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon on, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed." A bit later he tacks on rather dramatically, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." However, John Locke goes on to explain even more, that even in the state of nature that "each transgression may be punished [with death], and with so much severity, as will suffice it to make an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like." So, as Life and Health are supposedly a right by natural law, a lot can be done that is a forfeiture of your rights. According to Locke, to be a free individual requires, quite literally, a dedication to the enforcement of justice, which is an indication that it is not a choice to doll out justice, but an obligation. This is not an agreement, it is dictated by reason and to not doll out justice is likewise a violation of the natural law, which is a forfeiture of your rights. To address my expanded debate topic, which you are more than welcome to choose to ignore… A free citizen is a citizen of a free society. A free individual has no fellow citizens. Therefore, they cannot be obliged to any debt to them. The phrase "social contract" is thrown around an awful lot in discussions of political thought, so I will attempt to steer away from it. I will just describe what is often meant by it, and it will more likely resemble John Locke's arguments than others who are well known for it, such as Hobbs and bunch of French intellectuals who never bothered consulting reality until reality put their heads on the block. At any rate, in theory a state of nature exists. Locke, who benefited from the patronage of the Earl of Salisbury after installing a drain to remove fluid from the Earl's abdomen was a great proponent of the American frontier and wilderness. The Earl was very involved in the development of the Virginia colony. This wilderness inspired Locke, and was often used as an example of his state of nature. This is frequently used as an example by him, and it is unfortunate that I suspect that there is no where a person may go to find themselves in a state of nature. I guess, historically, a state of nature also existed a long, long, time ago. In Locke's Second Treatise he develops the argument that people tend to migrate away from the state of nature into what he describes as a "civil society." This civil society relies on the social contract, which is the notion that a government governs with the consent of the governed. This was viewed as a "radical" idea when it developed, however historically every government has governed with the consent of the governed. Unrest of an appropriate magnitude always leads to revolution, however John Locke's Second Treaties was developed and published as a justification for the Glorious Revolution, and the "consent of the governed" was meant to indicate that good ol' William and Mary did have a right to the throne, because that James guy just didn't have consent. So, with that back ground in mind, the notion of a civil society as an alternative to the state of nature was born. It was also considered by Locke to be inevitable. What Locke literally said of the civil society, is; "Where-ever therefore any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit everyone his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political or civil society. And this is done, where-ever any number of men, in the state of nature, enter into a society to make one people, one body politic, under one supreme government, or else when any one joins himself to, and incorporates with any government already made: for hereby he authorizes the society, or which is all one, the legislative thereof, to make laws for him, as the public good of the society shall require to the execution whereof, his own assistance (as to his own decrees) is due. And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a common-wealth, by setting up a judge on the eath, with authority to determine all controversies and redress the injuries that may happen to any member of the commonwealth; which judge is the legislative, or magistrates appointed by it. And where-ever there are any number of men, whoever associated, that have no such decisive power to appeal to, they are still in the state of nature." So, a free society is one that does its best to serve the life, health, and to protect the property of the individuals in it, but by joining it you are expected to give up your rights to the state of nature and the natural law. So, if you are participating in a society, whether a free society or not, you must give up certain rights which you were entitled to, and consent to the rule of the law or society. Should you wish to give up this civil society, you are more than welcome to. However, by using roads, or schools, or anything that is created in any way by funding which comes from the civil society is a statement of your intentions to continue to participate in a civil society. So, to be a truly free individual, you must leave behind all benefits of our civil and free society. One cannot be a free individual in a civil society. Such a thing cannot, and does not exist. Pretensions of being a free individual is actually harmful to a civil society. It is not that a free individual is coerced into being a member of our society, individuals choose to participate. They are free to be members of a civil society, but to become a free individual they must exit our society. To exit our society, is to remove any debt of obligation to that society, and then their only obligation is to reason and to the enforcement of the natural law. This argument is part of the essence as to why I am a secessionist, and not a libertarian. Libertarian ideals are founded in a misunderstanding of what it means to be "free." Secession is a fracturing of a civil society into separate civil societies.