I feel obliged to respond now, against my better judgment, for the sake of any impressionable minds that may be following this. First let me sigh. Alright, we proceed.
I think we are becoming lost in this 'debate'; either you are not understanding what I am saying or you are ignoring it. In either case, I think it would help if we looked back and stated our positions whole, and cease merely responding to each others, attacking every sentence, bringing up new issues when, somehow, the others have yet to be resolved.
This issue of freedom began when I said something to the effect that moral law is a restriction thereof. What I mean is that adopting some code of conduct because you believe it to be the right code of conduct is, in my opinion, silly, if
it does not correspond to the manner in which you would behave if left to your own devices: i.e., if you were not under the impression that there was a moral obligation laid on you by some external entity.
You then brought up the issue of freedom in terms of social relations, government, law, etc., which was not my original intention. Nonetheles, the issues are related.
What you mean by the social contract (I am quite familiar with the concept, invented by jean-jacques Rousseau in a treatise by that name; do not explain it to me) confuses me; do you mean that I should accept societal law simply because I am in society? That is speculation; why should I? You seem to think that my existance itself is some sort of binding legal contract and that, as I receive benefits from society, I must
accept its dictates. Why must I? I have broken the law on numerous occasions; therefore, I do not have
to obey them. I might or I might not and if I do not, I might still expect or desire the benefits. That might be an unrealistic expectation or a desire unlikely to be fulfilled, if I commit suffiicent violations of the custom, but that is not the point.
if you do not feel the need to participate in American society, do you have the confidence in yourself to divorce yourself of all of the benefits of American society
Perhaps, but in any case, why should I? I don't feel any moral obligation to suffer under its obligations, regardless of whether or not I enjoy the benefits.
As far as cultural superiorty is concerned, you said that you disgreed with my view that no culture is superior to another. You claimed that the superior culture is that which, in one way or another, fulfills its members best. How would this be determined except statistically, by which culture has more
satisfied members. Therefore, you are basing your judgement of quality on a majority opinion. What of those who are not satisfied? You imply that, because X culture is most satisfying (statistically) it is the best. Is it best for them? Is it best for them to not be satisfied?
As a side note, there is no such thing as scientific, or any other kind, of proof.