Debt to Society: Deconstruction of a Reification Fallacy

 

"Debt to society" is a reification fallacy. There's no such thing. In order for there to be a debt, there must be one of two things:

- Proof of bodily or property damage
- Proof of a consensual agreement

Regarding the former (bodily or property damage): "Society" is a mental model for describing an entire group of individuals. To describe "society" as though it were a single individual exercising its own individual free will is to anthropomorphize said mental model. In a word, it's reification. It's also a false equivocation fallacy because it seeks to equivocate all individuals with the men and women who get away with forcing people to pay them for no other reason than that they call themselves "government". 

How could being born damage the body or property of a mental model? Given that "society" is provided as a euphemism for "men and women who force people to pay them" (since it is only those individuals who would collect this alleged debt), how could being born damage the bodies or property of the individual thieves represented by this mental model? How are the thieves damaged at all given that they literally benefit from damaging others, and from promising the future assets of the unborn to their creditors? If the bodies or property of these individuals are damaged by births (or anything else), why not just talk about the specific damage to those specific individuals instead of disingenuously claiming that it damages all individuals? Do all individuals collect damages when "society" is damaged or is it just the men and women who force people to pay them that collect damages?

If the claim is that people need to repay goods and services that were forced onto them as children (like the indoctrination camps euphemistically known as "schools") or the services forced onto them at any other time (like roads), isn't that the same as saying children steal from their parents through taxation? Isn't that the same as saying adults steal from themselves through taxation? If a child stole from a parent or if an adult stole from themselves, how would that victimize "society" or create an obligation to repay a third party? 

Doesn't the theft of taxation constitute property damage given that the victims of the theft are never made whole? Why is theft less damaging to the individuals who make up society than having a portion of their own stolen capital forced onto them in a way that they never would have chosen for themselves? How would returning the stolen property in the form of an indoctrination camp or a road mean that the victim has a debt to the thief? Why would anyone owe a thief money for returning a portion of what they stole? How would threatening parents with violence for not sending their kids to said camps make them whole? How would throwing people in cages for not submitting to theft make them whole? 

It couldn't, and it wouldn't.

Regarding the latter (consensual agreements): It can't be claimed that there's a consensual agreement between each individual and every other individual just because people exist. The existence of people is necessary to prove the existence of a consensual agreement but it isn't sufficient. There also needs to be a meeting of the minds and the capacity to withhold consent without it resulting in violence. Given that the assets of the unborn are promised thirty years ahead of time by the men and women calling themselves government, where would one find evidence of such an agreement? How would one incur a debt before being born? 

If people were volunteering their infants and unborn children for pre-arranged marriage with elderly bureaucrats, wouldn't that be abhorrent? Wouldn't there be outrage? So what makes it okay to volunteer infants and unborn children for life-long tax theft? Magic costumes, guns and badges? Double standards and hypocrisy? Reasons and "move to Somalia"?

How is it even possible to render informed consent at any age if the consequences for "not consenting" are cages and violence? Given that every action taken by men and women under auspices of "government" is backed by a threat of "comply or die", wouldn't that make consenting to their demands impossible even if you tell yourself you're happy to comply or pay taxes?

It absolutely would.

So like I said, there's no such thing as a "debt to society". "Debt to society" is just one of those things that predators say to separate people from their assets with minimal resistance. It's also what sufferers of Stockholm syndrome say when horizontally enforcing the whims of their aggressors.