The Sundance Channel has a program currently airing about Holocaust survivors. Most of those interviewed were children during World War II. So many of them survived because they broke the rules. Often it was just a matter of not showing up when they were supposed to – even once they were inside the camps.
Well, as has been stated your choice is to follow the rules or face the punishment. There is however a caveat: “facing” the punishment doesn’t necessarily mean “suffering” the punishment, because they have to catch you first. If you manage to get away with breaking the rules and not get caught, then you can live happily ever after.
Essentially this turns one cost/benefit assessment (obey the rules vs. be punished) into a slightly more complicated one (obey the rules vs. be punished vs. get away with it, with uncertainty as to which of the last two you’ll get). The uncertainty the second assessment can add a bit of spice to life 
- but in cases where the effects of following the rule are assessed as being as bad or worse than the consequences of breaking the rule scaled by the odds of getting caught, then it makes logical sense to break the rule.
Deciding not to show up for roll call at the gas chamber would seem likely to offer higher potential rewards for those few who succeed in getting away with it. Deciding to break your daycare’s toothbrush rules? You decide.
Honor is doing the right thing when no one is looking.
The way I look at it, this country (USA) provides so many freedoms, benefits and opportunities that when it turns around and asks something of me I say “you got it!”.
To the OP, it has been shown that a seatbelt can help someone maintain control of a vehicle that is losing control. And cancer from second hand smoke is not some conspiracy dreamed up by non-smokers. I know some people are very cynical and don’t believe the government has our best interests in mind. But I do know people who are true statesmen and not just politicians with only their own agenda.
recall from Thomas Jefferson, something along the lines of “the tree of liberty should be watered with blood of patriots and tyrants”. This statement is a bit “judgmental” and extreme to be of much practical use, but it illustrates a key point, that a good social contract should incorporate effective methods to review its setup periodically, to arrest a slide into tyranny.
After all, remember that in Nazi occupied areas there was a social contract too - which involved, inter alia, that Jews should be rounded up and killed. Presumably if some Poles were to ask the Gestapo “why should this evil rule be followed”, they would have gotten this wonderful answer that keeps getting used around here “because if you don’t like the benefits of this society, move to another one”.
Well, so it always helps to arrest the slide into tyranny in early stages. How to practically do this in modern America is a good question, and I am not certain as to what the answer is.
And requiring drivers to wear seatbelts is tyrannical? I know some immigrants from the former Soviet Union who find that laughable.
You don’t have to follow the rules. You are under no obligation to follow the rules. You can do whatever the hell you want to do.
If, however, you choose not to follow the rules, you will be subject to punishment. If you don’t want to be subject to that punishment, and still don’t want to follow the rules, then you can try to get the rules changed, or move to a place that has different rules or different punishments.
And if you try to get the rules changed and you fail, then you live with it. And follow the rules.
I don’t think that anybody said that you have **agreed **to follow any rules. Society, as a whole, only agrees that you shall be punished if caught for violating the rules that they have set up, at the hands of the enforcement agents at said society’s disposal.
Actually, she only broke one rule in order to get her own set of rules into place.