Individual obligation vs. society's obligation

True or false...

An individual's obligation to society ought to outweigh society's obligation to the individual.

I'd like to see other people's viewpoints on such a topic. Personally, I think that this statement, for the most part, is true. An individual's obligation to society would essentially be for one to be a good citizen. One would have to refrain from stealing, murdering, arson, things of that sort. If an individual were to participate in any of the aforementioned, I don't think that a society should be obligated to house such a reckless citizen. Besides, in the best interest of everyone else in the society, it'd be best to remove said individual from the society lest he/she cause more damage to the people or the property. Of course there are ways of dealing with unruly members of society. (Prison, continuation facilities, mental institutions... lol) After all, it wouldn't be fair at all to go as far as to banish everyone who breaks the rules.

A society's obligation to the individual, I think, would be to keep things running smoothly including public sanitation, public transportation, public safety, amongst other things. But before such obligations can actually be satisfied, wouldn't the society need the cooperation of its members? A society cannot function if a large portion of its members have their own agenda. On the other hand, if a society is refusing to accommodate to the needs of its deserving members, the members could petition for reform and perhaps take things up with the big boys in the government. At least there is a glimmer of hope for change in this senario. What would a society do with tons and tons of unruly citizens? It's much harder to control, isn't it?

I overheard this topic during one of my classes and I've been thinking about it since then. What do you guys think?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

This happens to be a debate topic for some team or another and apparently one must pick an affirmative side or the opposition, obviously. I was thinking, if one were for the affirmative, how would one have a rebuttal against the Great Depression? Regardless of the fact that many unemployed people clamored for change, there was little anyone could do. President Roosevelt tried helping by empowering labor unions and plans with the "New Deal" but in the grand scheme of things, it hardly put a dent against the society's economic low. It was WWII that brought the people out of depression. If one were to argue that individuals have the greater obligation to society and the individuals in the Great Depression could do little to help, what could be said? I suppose it was individuals that led to the participation in WWII, but is that a effective, valid statement?

There's nowhere I can't reach.