"Some people are born to mothers that leave them out on the street corners to die. Those people owe nothing. It seems you wish you were one of those people. I do too."

So your claim now is that the constitution applies to everyone except orphans? Seems kind of hypocritical and intellectually dishonest given that you've yet to demonstrate how being raised by parents creates an obligation on a child to pay "their lives" to nameless, faceless third parties. What evidence is there that the constitution applies to people raised by their parents but not orphans? Oh yeah, there is none. It's all argumentum ad baculum.

"Bow down before Zod! In return, he will allow you to live!"

"Feel free to go to some of that unclaimed land and claim it. " Argumentum ad baculum isn't an argument. I already have a place to live that I pay for and am responsible for. Why would I need to go somewhere else in order for you to provide evidence that the constitution applies to me?

Simple question: What's your evidence that the constitution applies to me? How does what I think or where I live have any bearing on whether or not you can prove your claims?

"Your subjugation to society is merely to pay off this debt. It's provided you free of charge, 18 years of care and development. "

How can if be 'free of charge' AND result in a debt?

At best, that's crap logic.

Some people are born to mothers that leave them out on the street corners to die. Those people owe nothing. It seems you wish you were one of those people. I do too.

Loved your response! You just ATE HIS LUNCH...

His argument is shit.  It's essentially, "you consented because you are still alive" and "I'm attributing this fact to the abstract concept of  "society", therefore you owe society (me) money" 

He would not consent to "society"  if only those who consented were forced to pay for it.

"How is all land claimed given that the vast majority of it is untouched and unhomesteaded?"

Feel free to go to some of that unclaimed land and claim it. It will last until someone stronger comes along and takes it from you. That is the only true natural law: Survival of the fittest. Government provides a means to protect the weaker members of society from stronger ones. You claim there's "no evidence" of the services you received... well, that's because it's hard to provide evidence of something that didn't happen. For instance, Canada and Mexico didn't send a battalion of soldiers to your town, rape and pillage it, then levy a heavy tax on the rest of you. That didn't happen because the US Army protects our borders. (I'm assuming you live in the US, obviously.)

There's no real "evidence" that this protection worked, sure. That gives you a nice loophole to keep screaming "no one has provided evidence!" But that's an utterly ridiculous attitude. You can look at history and see  what happens to regions with a weak military. They get conquered. 

Now you get to cry argumentum ad baculum. Because, of course, we you can't craft a reasoned reply to a realistic point you can always fall back on screaming logical fallacy!