Obligations to the State

[Forty Two]

Thread split from 'Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice'.

I would ask that my positions and arguments each be judged on their own merit, but I've come to accept that most people need simplified labels to order their lives around. I see libertarianism as an ideal, unattainable until a bit of social Darwinism culls the heard. And the riff Raff will clearly engage in whatever methods they need to to ensure they become the ones determining the culling. Thank goodness for Eastern Asia, which is having none of this self defeating guilt. Here's hoping we can hold it together long enough for genetic engineering to enable those who plan their families and work for a living to distinguish themselves at a new racial level from those who breed for a living. Then maybe they'll have the balls to do what needs to be done.

I notice you didn't address my question about what constitutes a 'meaningful contribution' to society and how we might decide who of us is to be defined in or out of that category, and on what terms.

Doing a job that almost anyone could do, while there are unemployed people out there, and having required extraordinary assistance to get there? Yeah, not meaningful. If we leave it up to parents and allow them to say, "this one's a lemon, let's try again," I'm okay with that. If we as a society choose to invest only in children that might actually produce more than they consume, that's another path. I mean the notion of "useless eaters" isn't something particular to the Nazis (it was also adopted by ancient Sparta, The Soviet Union, and various military city states throughout history). If you take out the pseudo-scientific racist part, the "Life unworthy of life" arguments put forth in Nazi Germany go into great detail regarding this.

Where does an individual's obligation to meaningfully contribute come from? That meaningful contribution thing is an aspect of communism, which demands contribution from each individual to the extent the community deems them able. It renders the expatriate an outlaw -- i.e. Jeremiah Johnson, who leaves society to go to the mountains to live on his own is an outlaw because he chooses to leave the community and fend for himself. That's why communism generally demands the seizure of the property of expatriates and dissidents/dissenters. They aren't contributing properly. That's why communism and socialism heavily restrict exiting the country, and walls people in (as opposed to keeping them out) - it's in relation to the obligation to contribute to the your ability. (Note, by socialist I do not include social democracies like Denmark and such, or other western democracies, because they aren't "socialist" - they're capitalist countries with market economies that afford a large safety net for the poor and the needy).

It's also a feature of other collectivist philosophies, like fascism and Nazism as you point out, because they, in their way, also demand subjugation of the individual to the State or the community. The individual gets what he "needs," but must - must - contribute to society in the way society deems meaningful. Fascism and Nazism just are honest about the fact that its an all powerful government/state which tells you what to do, and if you know what's good for you, you'll do it.

A libertarian believes that the individual may opt to not contribute at all, if he or she doesn't want to. Others are not, of course, obliged to serve that "opting out" individual either, so it cuts both ways.

A classical liberal will see a role for the state in protection of individual interests where they come in contact and conflict with other individuals' interests, and with the protection of safety of individuals etc., but will have due respect for individual autonomy in some respect (generally through the carving out of individual rights, which extend through reasoned analysis from basic, fundamental aspects of being a human being). This is where the State has a role, and the individual has rights be let alone in given areas.

The notion that the State may compel an individual to work or otherwise "meaningfully contribute" is repugnant to both libertarianism and classical liberalism, but it's part and parcel of communism, socialism, fascism and Nazism. That's why those latter collectivist philosophies are unappealing to me. The level of compulsion, and the level of subjection of the individual to the will of the community or the State is fundamentally and inherently oppressive.

[Hermit]

The matter can be framed in terms of the following question.

Do women have dominion over their own bodies, and if not to when and to what extent do others (whoever they may be) have dominion over a women's bodies?

A better framing is "do people have dominion over their own bodies, and if not, to when and to what extent do others (whoever they may be) have dominion over people's bodies?" And, what exactly does it mean to have dominion over one's own body?

Using the argument that has been advanced by some on other threads - the concept of individual rights, such as freedom of speech or a right to have dominion over one's own body, is meaningless, and relies on some fake or invented theory of natural rights. Under that argument, the dominion over our bodies is nothing different than other regulations, such as safety laws concerning drugs and medical devices, or automobiles, etc. We have a democratic society which makes laws based on what the majority wants, with elected representatives doing the lawmaking subject to elections and such.

So, under that theory - typically advanced by our continental European members and one or two Ozzies - the answer to the question would be "people have dominion over their own bodies to the extent allowed by the democratic process, and the State through its laws and the democratic process decides what dominion the individual and the society/state have over individuals' bodies." Where the state says you can't ingest a substance based on democratic processes, then you lose that dominion over your own body. Where the state says you can't get an abortion, then you lose that dominion, too.

A libertarian will generally see the state and the government's role as limited and subject to the will of the people in its initial creation, and there will be areas into which such authorities may not stray. There are a number of philosophical theories underpinning this point of view, but the would all include something akin to a property ownership over one's own body and thus a limitation on the state dominion over individuals' bodies being to protect that property interest. Same thing with another area, like free speech, where most libertarian theories involve some iteration of the fact that we own what's in our heads and our thoughts, thus having no permissible restriction on our freedom of thought. And, we own our words as we speak them, with each individual having the same right to express whatever is in their own head. The limitation put on that is some iteration of actual harm to other people (such as injurious falsehoods, defamation, nuisance, and the like).

Where someone does not acknowledge or have some basis for individual rights, I'm not sure where one gets the idea that a person has "dominion" over their own body any more than they have dominion over anything else.

Impressive exposition, Forty Two, but the basis of libertarianism is no more a human construct than any other ideology, and its insistence on the inviolability of personal property and dominion over one's own body is neither complete nor unchanging. Even the most rigorous libertarian nation will insist on you surrendering some of the property in the form of taxation you may have worked so hard for because voluntary contributions simply don't suffice to finance the large scale infrastructure projects private enterprise cannot provide. Even if they did, they would be odious. You'd have people taking advantage of the highway system they have not contributed a cent to. There will be compulsory expropriations if they are deemed to be necessary and in the national interest. Sure, the owner will be compensated, but if he/she wants to hang on to it regardless of the money offered for it, it will still be taken away. And when push comes to shove, even the most libertarian government will force people to risk their lives in a war. All it takes is for too many of them saying "Thanks, but no thanks. I'll just keep ploughing my own field if you don't mind." If the libertarian nation is seriously threatened by another, conscription laws will be released from hibernation first thing in the morning. You will be forced to sacrifice your life for the sake of the society you live in.

It is not as though citizens in non-libertarian nations are altogether subject to the whims of the tyranny of democracy. You've probably heard of the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights. Yes, it too is a social construct and it is also subject to change, but it is an ideal most social democratic nations have signed up to and do a reasonably good job at adhering to. Much of it harmonises with libertarianism, but in practical terms it leaves more options open to individuals as social beings rather than individualists. The adage "No man is an island" very much applies. You and I agree on some things. Where we disagree is to where to draw the line between the freedom of the individual and the requirements of the society that makes the existence of the individual possible.

And again, those requirements change in place and time. One day some official may interrupt whatever I am, or you are doing at the time with the order: "Drop everything, take this spade and dig latrines for the soldiers who are about to risk their lives for the sake of your country." I may be living in a social democracy, and you in a libertarian country. Neither of us will like being forced to obey that order, but both of us may obey just the same.

ETA:

I would say that no individual has an obligation to contribute to society at all.

If it were possible to live completely isolated from society, I'd agree. It's impossible. Not even Daniel Defoe managed to create such a scenario 300 years ago. If seven billion individuals tried that today, 99% of them, or more, would perish in under a decade.

[Brian Peacock]

You've just reminded me why I called Seth's grand vision of a perfectible Libertarian nation the Utopia of Solipsistic Anarchists.

[Forty Two]

Impressive exposition, Forty Two, but the basis of libertarianism is no more a human construct than any other ideology, and its insistence on the inviolability of personal property and dominion over one's own body is neither complete nor unchanging.

I agree with that. However, recall that my question was that I was not clear where someone gets the idea of a dominion over our own body, if they do not have SOME BASIS for there to be individual rights (into which the government may not stray). So, the question is, stated another way: "so, you say that individuals have dominion over their own bodies? What's your reasoned argument for that and what is the extent of that dominion?"

Even the most rigorous libertarian nation will insist on you surrendering some of the property in the form of taxation you may have worked so hard for because voluntary contributions simply don't suffice to finance the large scale infrastructure projects private enterprise cannot provide.

There are concepts of libertarianism that would not have such compelled surrender via taxation. However, those are extreme libertarian forms. Most people who call themselves libertarian are in the nature of Minarchist Liberals, who acknowledge a minimum State necessary to do certain things, and as such grudgingly accept some taxation. Yes. What that means is that most libertarians are not absolutists or anarcho capitalists. They're mainly just classical liberals who find a home in libertarianism because there is no home for them in major political parties.

Even if they did, they would be odious. You'd have people taking advantage of the highway system they have not contributed a cent to. There will be compulsory expropriations if they are deemed to be necessary and in the national interest. Sure, the owner will be compensated, but if he/she wants to hang on to it regardless of the money offered for it, it will still be taken away. And when push comes to shove, even the most libertarian government will force people to risk their lives in a war. All it takes is for too many of them saying "Thanks, but no thanks. I'll just keep ploughing my own field if you don't mind." If the libertarian nation is seriously threatened by another, conscription laws will be released from hibernation first thing in the morning. You will be forced to sacrifice your life for the sake of the society you live in.

Agreed - that is a thorny and difficult area for Libertarians to explain, and it's precisely why I'm not an absolutist libertarian or an anarcho capitalist. I'm generally a minarchist, classical liberal who believes in a republican government through elected representatives who make laws within the confines of a constitutionally limited republic.

It is not as though citizens in non-libertarian nations are altogether subject to the whims of the tyranny of democracy. You've probably heard of the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights.

Indeed, and the question is - if one accepts these as enunciating fundamental individual rights - where do they come from? Are they arbitrary? Are they just popular? Or, is there a rational basis for them?

Yes, it too is a social construct and it is also subject to change, but it is an ideal most social democratic nations have signed up to and do a reasonably good job at adhering to. Much of it harmonises with libertarianism, but in practical terms it leaves more options open to individuals as social beings rather than individualists. The adage "No man is an island" very much applies. You and I agree on some things. Where we disagree is to where to draw the line between the freedom of the individual and the requirements of the society that makes the existence of the individual possible.

I would agree with this paragraph above, too.

And again, those requirements change in place and time. One day some official may interrupt whatever I am, or you are doing at the time with the order: "Drop everything, take this spade and dig latrines for the soldiers who are about to risk their lives for the sake of your country." I may be living in a social democracy, and you in a libertarian country. Neither of us will like being forced to obey that order, but both of us may obey just the same.

Indeed, that too - and, again, i'm not strictly a libertarian - I said I "lean" libertarian, because of its skepticism of government action and wariness against an authoritarian state (that kind of thing). But, I'm more of a classical liberal, with firm respect for government, but a desire to see it limited to its essential functions and what it's good at doing, and also a firm respect for the individual as the baseline unit of humanity, or of society, if you will. The individual must have liberty, for liberty is the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girded to tight, and man becomes a syncope.

ETA:

I would say that no individual has an obligation to contribute to society at all.

If it were possible to live completely isolated from society, I'd agree. It's impossible. Not even Daniel Defoe managed to create such a scenario 300 years ago. If seven billion individuals tried that today, 99% of them, or more, would perish in under a decade.

If man has an obligation to contribute, then we are slaves to the state. Man may have a practical necessity to work and be productive in order to survive, support a family, raise children, etc. However, to suggest that man has an obligation to contribute to society is a subtly different concept, and that subtle difference is deeply pernicious in that it places a requirement on an individual to act in accordance with the will of a State.

I would not impose such an obligation on individuals. Even in the case of government largess, or welfare, I do not impose such an obligation - the most I support is are conditions, not obligations. If you want unemployment compensation funds, then you have comply with the requirements, one of which is to regularly apply, in good faith, for jobs and accept a job that is available and offered to you. That's subtly different, in my view, than a general obligation to contribute to society, much less contribute "meaningfully."

I.e., by saying there is no obligation to contribute to society, I am not saying one has a right to be supported for free. What I'm saying is that a person cannot generally be compelled to act. Such compulsion would necessarily include, for example, the power of the state to declare a trust fund baby "not meaningfully contributing" and require him or her to start sweeping streets or whatever. There is a road we don't want to go down when the State would have the power to compel people to meaningfully contribute -- like, a professional college student who just goes on year after year, taking 10 years and not yet graduating, but living a Bohemian lifestyle on Oodles-of-Noodles and cheap bear. Such a person might be forced to meaningfully contribute by getting a regular job, or engaging in State run work programs.

That's what I mean when I say there is no obligation to contribute to society - by obligation, I mean a power in the State to compel a person to contribute in a way the State deems meaningful.

I suspect we largely agree here, and any difference may be in terms of terminology, semantics or a small degree.

[Hermit]

If man has an obligation to contribute, then we are slaves to the state.

That statement fits an absolutist libertarian down to a tee. I don't know how on earth you can even attempt to propose that no individual has an obligation to contribute to society at all. Granted, as you mentioned, many states enforce unreasonable obligations on its citizens, and that must be resisted always, but ever since humans have evolved beyond existing as hunter-gatherers obligations to contribute to the state have become a matter of survival rather than slavery. Not contributing to the state is not an option unless you are OK with dying, more likely than not before managing to sort of eternalise yourself via the fruit of your loins, in the very near future. At this stage we should merely be haggling about where the line between reasonable and unreasonable obligations lies rather than considering whether we are obliged to contribute to the state at all.

[Forty Two]

If man has an obligation to contribute, then we are slaves to the state.

That statement fits an absolutist libertarian down to a tee. I don't know how on earth you can even attempt to propose that no individual has an obligation to contribute to society at all.

They don't. If your long lost great uncle Jebediah passes away, and leaves you 10,000,000 after taxes, do you have an obligation to contribute to society? How? You have to get a job?
You have to join the Peace Corp? What? To what extent must you contribute? Who decides? You or the State? If I have an "obligation" to contribute to society, then I can't just sit at home and masturbate, right?

Granted, as you mentioned, many states enforce unreasonable obligations on its citizens, and that must be resisted always, but ever since humans have evolved beyond existing as hunter-gatherers obligations to contribute to the state have become a matter of survival rather than slavery.

What obligation does Oz impose on its citizens to contribute? I mean, not conditions -- obligations. I.e., you have to get a driver license to operate a vehicle on the road, but you don't have to get a driver license, right? You just can't drive. If you earn income, you have to pay taxes, right? But, you don't have to earn income, right?

Not contributing to the state is not an option unless you are OK with dying, more likely than not before managing to sort of eternalise yourself via the fruit of your loins, in the very near future. At this stage we should merely be haggling about where the line between reasonable and unreasonable obligations lies rather than considering whether we are obliged to contribute to the state at all.

That isn't true - one can stay home and do nothing, glom off his or her family, live on the kindness of strangers, whatever. Lots of ways to skin a cat.

Well, I think for the purposes of this discussion we have to define what it is to have an obligation to contribute to the state. I have a strong sense that we're operating under slightly different definitions.

My definition: Obligation to Contribute to the State - means that a person must do something that the state considers a productive, worthwhile contribution, whether that person likes it or not. A person has no right to stay home and do nothing, even if he has the means, and the state may compel him to perform productive contributions.

My answer is, no, the state may not do that, at all, and that if an individual wants to sit home and do jack shit all day, that's his call. The state, likewise, is not obliged to support him, and if he wants government support, the government may impose as a condition of receipt of that support, a requirement the person perform productive, worthwhile services, or do other things like search for gainful employment, etc. But, a condition on receipt of a benefit or subsidy is not the same thing as an obligation to do do X, Y or Z.

[Hermit]

Not contributing to the state is not an option unless you are OK with dying, more likely than not before managing to sort of eternalise yourself via the fruit of your loins, in the very near future. At this stage we should merely be haggling about where the line between reasonable and unreasonable obligations lies rather than considering whether we are obliged to contribute to the state at all.

That isn't true - one can stay home and do nothing, glom off his or her family, live on the kindness of strangers, whatever. Lots of ways to skin a cat.

Well, I think for the purposes of this discussion we have to define what it is to have an obligation to contribute to the state. I have a strong sense that we're operating under slightly different definitions.

My definition: Obligation to Contribute to the State - means that a person must do something that the state considers a productive, worthwhile contribution, whether that person likes it or not. A person has no right to stay home and do nothing, even if he has the means, and the state may compel him to perform productive contributions.

My answer is, no, the state may not do that, at all, and that if an individual wants to sit home and do jack shit all day, that's his call. The state, likewise, is not obliged to support him, and if he wants government support, the government may impose as a condition of receipt of that support, a requirement the person perform productive, worthwhile services, or do other things like search for gainful employment, etc. But, a condition on receipt of a benefit or subsidy is not the same thing as an obligation to do do X, Y or Z.

When you stay home, bludge off your family or live on the kindness of strangers you are still benefiting from living in a state. You may not use roads yourself, you need not obey traffic rules or even obtain a drivers license, but others do that on your behalfwhen they do the shopping for stuff you finish up eating. If you truly live apart from any kind of state, this is the sort of stuff you need to do:



Ignoring the shorts this bloke wears, and the knowledge he has gained by growing up in a state, he is building a shelter without any aid by a state whatsoever. In the notes he mentions that it took him 30 working days over a period of nine months. If he were a full-time Robinson Crusoe he would have had to take time out picking berries and killing animals with sticks and stones or whatever in order not to starve,m and I wonder how and where he might have slept before his hut had a roof on it.

This is why I opined that at least 99% of humans would perish in short order if they attempted to live without a state, most of them before managing to procreate. And who would want to live like that anyway?

Like it or not, you are basically stuck with having to live in a state, and living in a state entails having obligations. It's what we call living in a society. What those obligations consist of depends on who you - that is each enfranchised member of it - vote into office as your representative.

What representatives come up with on your behalf may not be to your liking in cases where your wishes are very much in the minority. Don't like conscription? You're opposed to capital punishment? Don't want to sell your home because it needs to give way to the new airport runway? You want marijuana legalised? Tough titties. As long as the relevant laws stand, you are obliged to accept them, whether you agree with them or not.

What the representatives do on your behalf is of course limited. That's what the constitution is for, but it too is a social construct and subject to change. I believe you had 27 changes so far. Much of the change is for the better. Ending slavery comes to mind, and enfranchising women, though neither were unanimously accepted. It is very unlikely, though by no means impossible that one day the citizens of the United States of America will decide to have a communist constitution. Rights and obligations in relation to the state will be quite different then.

Yes, I oversimplified, but it's a starting point to discuss our differences of opinion.

[Brian Peacock]

Thread split from 'Libertarianism is inherently pro-choice'.

[rainbow]

A libertarian believes that the individual may opt to not contribute at all, if he or she doesn't want to. Others are not, of course, obliged to serve that "opting out" individual either, so it cuts both ways.

Yes, but Libertarians are tossers and we don't care what they think.

[Scot Dutchy]

Reminds me of the days trying to have a discussion with Seth on RD forum. Impossible.

[Forty Two]

When you stay home, bludge off your family or live on the kindness of strangers you are still benefiting from living in a state. You may not use roads yourself, you need not obey traffic rules or even obtain a drivers license, but others do that on your behalfwhen they do the shopping for stuff you finish up eating. If you truly live apart from any kind of state, this is the sort of stuff you need to do:

Indeed - but, deriving a benefit is not being obliged to contribute. If I live at my parents house until I'm 50, I derive a benefit from the state - e.g., if I draw a glass of water, I derive a benefit from the city water system, because my parents have that system hooked up to their house. However, my parents paid for that benefit, and gave me the water. Even if I do use the roads, it doesn't obligate anyone to do anything, except if it's a toll road. Roads are built expressly to allow people who do not contribute to use them. If the State wants to restrict road use, it can - either by a toll, or by some other means. But, it can't force me to work.

Ignoring the shorts this bloke wears, and the knowledge he has gained by growing up in a state, he is building a shelter without any aid by a state whatsoever. In the notes he mentions that it took him 30 working days over a period of nine months. If he were a full-time Robinson Crusoe he would have had to take time out picking berries and killing animals with sticks and stones or whatever in order not to starve,m and I wonder how and where he might have slept before his hut had a roof on it.

This is why I opined that at least 99% of humans would perish in short order if they attempted to live without a state, most of them before managing to procreate. And who would want to live like that anyway?

That doesn't mean the state can compel you to contribute. The state can condition activities on payments -- it can say you can't drive without a license. You can't own a house without paying property taxes. You can't build a house without a permit. However, that's "conditional," not an obligation imposed by the state to "contribute" in a "meaningful way." This may seem like a subtle difference, but it is critical.

Like it or not, you are basically stuck with having to live in a state, and living in a state entails having obligations.

Does it? Does the state oblige you to "contribute in a meaningful way?" Or, does the state condition your undertaking certain activities on payments or compliance requirements, or obedience to rules?

It's what we call living in a society. What those obligations consist of depends on who you - that is each enfranchised member of it - vote into office as your representative.

What representatives come up with on your behalf may not be to your liking in cases where your wishes are very much in the minority. Don't like conscription?

Indeed, conscription is a major point on your side. But, other than in wartime emergencies, free societies don't have conscription. Totalitarian ones do. Which is a point to be noted here. Conscription is an exception to the general rule, in an extreme circumstance where there is an existential crisis, and in free societies general have a politically difficult time enacting it. If you had in Oz or the US a measure proposed to require everyone to join the military for several years to "contribute meaningfully to society" you'd have a hard time getting that passed.

You're opposed to capital punishment? Don't want to sell your home because it needs to give way to the new airport runway? You want marijuana legalised? Tough titties. As long as the relevant laws stand, you are obliged to accept them, whether you agree with them or not.

These are conditions, not requirements that a person work meaningfully.

What the representatives do on your behalf is of course limited. That's what the constitution is for, but it too is a social construct and subject to change. I believe you had 27 changes so far. Much of the change is for the better. Ending slavery comes to mind, and enfranchising women, though neither were unanimously accepted. It is very unlikely, though by no means impossible that one day the citizens of the United States of America will decide to have a communist constitution. Rights and obligations in relation to the state will be quite different then.

Yes, I oversimplified, but it's a starting point to discuss our differences of opinion.

Indeed, the US constitution provides for a system of amendment, and it may well be replaced by an entirely new one.

The conscription exception to forced work is a good example of how dangerous a concept of "every individual has an obligation to contribute..." is. It's akin to the "...from each according to his ability" aspect of an overarching concept of communism. The State determines what is your meaningful contribution. The only other example I can think of is jury duty.

There is an interesting US Supreme Court case on the topic. In Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), in a case regarding Florida's requirement of men to work on the public roads, that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit the "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." The Court ruled that "In view of ancient usage and the unanimity of judicial opinion, it must be taken as settled that, unless restrained by some constitutional limitation, a state has inherent power to require every able-bodied man within its jurisdiction to labor for a reasonable time on public roads near his residence without direct compensation. This is a part of the duty which he owes to the public. The law of England is thus declared in Blackstone's Commentaries, bk. 1, page 357."

So, indeed, I must acknowledge that there must be some "duties which individuals owe to the state" and conscription and juries are two examples. Apparently, in the US, according to Butler v Perry (not sure if it was later modified or overruled), the State may oblige me to work, unpaid, on the roads near my home. I find that unsettling.

Good conversation, Hermit. Food for thought.

[Hermit]

...deriving a benefit is not being obliged to contribute.

Can you give me one example of a state, past or present, where no obligations were compulsory? If you cannot provide one, could you construct a hypothetical one that is not absurd? I mean, how long would a society last in which road/sewer/water/defence systems were built, but some of its members would not contribute to their construction or upkeep because they do not feel obliged to contribute to them via taxes (because taxation is theft) even though they benefit from them? On the broader scale, how long would such a society last if some members don't feel obliged to obey the very laws that protect them? Compulsory contributions to the state one lives in seems axiomatic to me for that state to remain in existence. You are, of course, free to agitate for change. In your state there are thousands of new laws, hundreds of thousand amendments to them (not to mention over two dozen changes to your constitution) that attest to the fact that change is possible - often for the better. Meanwhile, you must obey or face whatever the consequences of not obeying are. The existence of the state depends on it, and your existence depends on the existence of the state.

[Brian Peacock]

When you stay home, bludge off your family or live on the kindness of strangers you are still benefiting from living in a state. You may not use roads yourself, you need not obey traffic rules or even obtain a drivers license, but others do that on your behalfwhen they do the shopping for stuff you finish up eating. If you truly live apart from any kind of state, this is the sort of stuff you need to do:

Indeed - but, deriving a benefit is not being obliged to contribute. If I live at my parents house until I'm 50, I derive a benefit from the state - e.g., if I draw a glass of water, I derive a benefit from the city water system, because my parents have that system hooked up to their house. However, my parents paid for that benefit, and gave me the water. Even if I do use the roads, it doesn't obligate anyone to do anything, except if it's a toll road. Roads are built expressly to allow people who do not contribute to use them. If the State wants to restrict road use, it can - either by a toll, or by some other means. But, it can't force me to work.

Perhaps not, but your parents should force you to work - though you shouldn't need forcing, repaying them for their kindness and support is just the decent thing to do. You're a drain on them and thus, by extension, deriving a benefit from the state. Your analogy rather breaks down here: you are basically saying that Libertarianism allows one to have one's needs met without any obligation to those who meet those needs. It's the political equivalent of a toddler's tantrum in the candy isle at the supermarket.

[Forty Two]

...deriving a benefit is not being obliged to contribute.

Can you give me one example of a state, past or present, where no obligations were compulsory?

I'm not sure - what obligations other than the wartime conscription are you referring to?

If you cannot provide one, could you construct a hypothetical one that is not absurd? I mean, how long would a society last in which road/sewer/water/defence systems were built, but some of its members would not contribute to their construction or upkeep because they do not feel obliged to contribute to them via taxes (because taxation is theft) even though they benefit from them?

Nobody is "obliged" to contribute to their construction or upkeep. People who earn income are required to pay taxes, yes. But, they aren't obliged to earn income. Recall my distinction between a conditional requirement and an obligation to work.

On the broader scale, how long would such a society last if some members don't feel obliged to obey the very laws that protect them?

The difference is an obligation to obey laws, vs an obligation to do work that the State deems meaningful.
I don't have to work. But if I do, I have to pay taxes on income. However, it's my choice to be a starving artist, trying in vain to get my paintings to sell, even though they suck. The state should not be able to compel me to do something it thinks is meaningful. That's more of the point I'm making.

Compulsory contributions to the state one lives in seems axiomatic to me for that state to remain in existence. You are, of course, free to agitate for change. In your state there are thousands of new laws, hundreds of thousand amendments to them (not to mention over two dozen changes to your constitution) that attest to the fact that change is possible - often for the better. Meanwhile, you must obey or face whatever the consequences of not obeying are. The existence of the state depends on it, and your existence depends on the existence of the state.

I think under your theory, I am "free" to agitate for change only if the State finds that to be meaningful. otherwise, it has the just and rightful authority to compel me to perform some other activity that it deems meaningful, since I would be obligated to meaningfully contribute, and the State defines what that is.

I am not arguing that there can be no laws and regulations. I'm not arguing that being a stock broker requires you to obey the securities laws, pay registration fees, and be licensed to participate in that industry (having taken required courses, etc.). I'm not arguing that the State can't have conditions to the practice of law, or engineering or accountancy. I'm suggesting that the State should not be able to compel you to be a broker, lawyer, engineer or accountant, if you want to be layabout, poet, or professional masturbator, instead.

[Animavore]

I find it interesting how Libertarians sometimes use evolution to talk about "natural rights" of the individual while completely ignoring humans are a social species.

We're primates, not polar bears, and proto morals on fairness are seen in our closest kin. We evolved and survived on reciprocal altruism. It couldn't be otherwise because our weak ass ancestors would not survive in the wild on their own.

Libertarianism relies on a wrapped definition of evolution.

Besides that; I don't find Libertarians interesting at all. Just arseholes.