There is always more then 2 choices. Choice #3 move to a different society.
Nope. This isn't an agreement. It's a false choice. There are only two choices that might not get you thrown in the slammer or worse, leave or follow the rules (and sometimes, leaving a society is breaking the rules, especially if you try to take your property with you). Choice 3 would be to break the rules in some way, but that's where one group of people claims to have the right to force you to follow the rules. This is the basis of the Rule of Law isn't it? Or perhaps we could call it the Law of Rulers.
There isn't anything objective about the one group of people we call Rulers in a society and the Rules. Our Founding Fathers actually noted this and tried to deal with the concept when they created the government. It's the whole "All Men Are Created Equal" bit, but then they went on and started created exceptions to this when they created the rest of the government.
The problem is that the whole edifice is based off of nothing but belief. We can look at each other across the table at each other and objectively there is no reason why one of us should rule over the other, but if one of us is wearing the right clothing and official jewelry, we might now have the power to force you to do what we want. This is a problem because it means that our whole basis of organizing society is built on an irrational principle. It's the same irrational principle that all religions and gods are based off of. They simply do not exist in any objective sense. If everyone stopped believing tomorrow, the religion disappears, the people in costumes wearing fancy jewelry become just that.
It's ironic that belief in government is false in exactly the same way religions are false, because so many atheists are strong supporters of government power. They literally have transferred their belief from one religion to another and don't realize it. Or course for others, the people who believe in gods, the belief in government makes perfect sense as well. Irrationality welcomes itself.
That said, I guess if I have to answer my own questions in this thread, I'd have to say that there is no rational basis for one group of people to dictate/prohibit what is risky and what is not for another. We can pretend to use reason and facts to back up our argument for or against risk, but as soon as an appeal to law is made, it doesn't matter any more. One group is claiming that they have the right to initiate force against everyone different in order to make them do what they want.
Objectively, the only way to have a real discussion is to take force out of the equation. At the very best, you can attempt to craft an argument that uses reason and evidence to back up your point about what is risky and some people might agree. Some others might not...and that is their right as sovereign equal humans. They can form a community and you can form a community and the world is still big enough to house us all.
And, no, this is not what we have now. Our world is a geography of invisible lines where one group of people claims the Rule of Law over everyone within a geographic area. However, the Law of Rulers is false. People are equal and free and society won't make any sense until humanity can truly express this.
