We do not live in a indentured servitude society, we got rid of slavery 150+ years ago. There is no "entanglement" of benefits. This sounds uber fascist.
There is an entanglement of benefits.
You pay less for things thanks to patrolled roads. (I know I said I'd limit this to security but what follows is much more about security than roads,
per se, plus you bring up roads yourself, so I feel no further obligation to avoid them.)
A patrolled road makes banditry riskier and therefore less likely to occur. Therefore, with the exception of extremely valuable commodities (large sums of cash, for example), most things shipped overland in the US have very little in the way of private security protecting them. Typically, a truck will be locked. There's no call for the hiring of armed security guards are escort vehicles in most cases.
As shipping companies do not have to worry as much about private security thanks to the patrolled roads, they save money they would otherwise spend. Since they save money, they can charge less to the manufacturers whose goods they carry, which means those manufacturers spend less.
Which, of course, means
you spend less for those goods.
I feel very confident that some, if not most, of what you purchase has been shipped overland on patrolled roads, so I feel very confident in charging that you have materially benefited from the existence of the patrolled roads.
It's a pretty convoluted example, I admit, but that is by design. The purpose is to show the absolute entanglement both you and society are caught in. You can't help but benefit from this situation (without leaving), and society can't help but let you benefit from it (without removing you). There is no way to patrol the roads in such a way that shipments of things that will ultimately be bought by you are less secure than others, and there is no way for you to pay for the private security that would have had to exist had the roads not been patrolled.
Yes, you are stuck, by virtue of having been born and not left, receiving the benefits of society. Society is just as stuck, by virtue of your having been born and not removing you, giving them to you. As such, society is entitled to you helping, along with everyone else, pay for the things you benefit from.
I could easily make arguments to where "current society" has done nothing to benefit me, as the rapid deforestation of the land has made everything worse.
I have already illustrated that there is no way you receive no benefit from society. There may be an interesting philosophical question of whether you have received an overall net benefit from society, but it would also raise the question of whether society has received an overall net benefit from you.
It's ultimately irrelevant, anyway, because whether society has done you more harm than good does not affect your obligation to pay for what you receive. We can argue all day whether mega-corporations are a good thing, but if I want one of Wal-Marts too sweet t-shirts, I still have to give them $8.
No its not perfectly reasonable.
Just because some people want to build a road does not mean anyone else owes anything to them, period. They built the road for their own benefit, big deal that some "other" people get to use it. This is supposed to be America, remember?
There are no "other" people. There are people who pay for the road, and there are people who benefit from the road. These are the same people, and as long as you live among them, you are in the group.
Smaller example, Just because i shovel my sidewalk, plant flowers, clean the neighborhood does not mean people owe me anything. As i did it for my benefit and others also just happen to reap my benefits.
Smaller, and worse. Having a clean and pretty neighborhood is not a natural consequence of living in a neighborhood. Being more secure is a natural consequence of living in a society. There is no entanglement of benefits in your scenario.
Because they did not consent or ask for it. It is not their duty to recompense.
Continued presence and acceptance of benefits constitutes consent.
:
