(Also what everyone else said: it's premature optimisation)
Answer: "You've had all the benefits of the internet, which you've already overpaid [1] for. Rather than switching to a better internet provider, it's time to return part of the favor."
Spot the flaw in your comment yet? It's a generic non-response that applies to every possible service and ignores the fact that the service has already been paid for.
[1] Most government spending - which he has already financed with his taxes - is merely wealth transfers to non-workers. Only a small fraction consists of the services you mention.
As to your spotted flaws: firstly, it's obvious that people start their lives with 20+ years of being as net recipients of government transfers, and while the services you consumed may have been paid for at the time, those that paid them would now like their pensions, and a new generation of children need (apparently better) education.
It's unfortunate that three-year olds are not in a position to rationally choose to rather live in Somalia, and that they therefore become part of a social contract they never actually signed – but can you come up with a better arrangement? It's very similar with parents, btw.
Funny thing though: I just now notice that I've actually always shared your opinion, in that if you actually stop consuming government services, i. e. leave the country, I'e always taken for granted that you're henceforth taxed at your new residence (strange US rules nonewithstanding).
But Comcast example is obviously wrong because OP clearly intents to remain living in the US – i. e. using Comcast. And my arguments above actually make the case that you should pay severance and assume your share of the debt if you leave. But, considering the US is the prime beneficiary of smart 18-year old immigrants, it's probably in your interest not to change the SQ.
Oh, and only about 30% of the gov spending is in transfers, and most of that is SS and Medicare. While you could make the case that these lazy 80-year olds should stop sulking and get a job, some of them may protest and insist that they're just getting back what they paid into the system.
Past purchases do not imply some moral obligation to make future purchases.
I'm really not sure what the rest of your rant is about - it's not really responsive to the point I'm making.
Stop spreading the nonsense that Govt is owner of the land. Its not. At best Govt/Army is protector of the land for which almost everyone happy to pay.
So no I dont have to go anywhere Its my land. The onus to figuaring out feasible payment method falls on the "mafia" or close the shop, IDGAF.
What about the rights of the parents? They are the custodians of the child's consent until they are able to make their own decisions. I.e. Their right to choose that their children not be part of some abstract contract even if they are themselves? Of course, then statists like to suggest "Well then, move to Somalia if you don't like it".
I've had this discussion, in multiple forms, starting in different spots, multiple times. It eventually gets to the Somalia suggestion (to the point of cliche), and the only logical point to make after that is: "States have taken up ALL land, including Somalia". Until you can offer people an alternative, or a logical and systematic way to get out of this weird contract of yours, then you can't possibly say that it's voluntary. Maybe even allow them to pay back all the "benefits" they have gotten, if it is even possible for such wishy-washy concept.
The problem is, you don't allow it. Even the richest persons on this world would not be "allowed" to "buy" their freedom from the "social contract". Because you use this wonderfully magical argument that says that all your wealth is owed to the "safe" society that government has provided. Convenient, yet choice and consent is magically not required.
What do you mean by buying your freedom from the social contract? The US, at least, allows people to renounce their citizenship after paying exit taxes and then they're free to choose citizenship in any country that will have them (and abide by that social contract instead).
Other than it not being practical to choose statelessness (so you have to find some country's social contract you're happy with), I don't see what is missing. It's true that you still have to follow US laws (and pay US taxes) if you want to conduct business in the US (and similarly for other countries), but those are voluntary choices, at the gain or cost of some business opportunities.