One of the things any society is built on, I would propose, is the idea that belonging to the society is worth more than not belonging to the society. In a way, a form of Rousseau's social contract, whereby individuals surrender their individuals rights to a greater whole and in return reap the benefit of that society.
In reality of course, we all believe in this because in some fashion or form, we practice it all the time. We join and then unjoin clubs and associations because they either fulfill or do not fulfill a need or purpose in our lives. We sign up for services and cancel them because either the do not fill the need or they no longer provide a service that we required.
In all of this, we think nothing of it. We do not agonize about the canceling of service ("Oh, Netflix, how can I let you go?") or even deciding to discontinue a club or activity ("It is not you, <insert name>, it is me."). We just do this. It no longer fills the bill, and we let it go.
So what happens when a society stops meeting the need?
This is one of those questions we are not "supposed to ask". The assumption always has to be that society is necessary and needed - along with the corollary that government is always necessary and needed. Without them, it is posited, the world simply cannot work. It will slip back into the primordial chaos of The Abyss.
But is it not a fair question to ask what is that society or government doing for me?
Yes, Yes, I know - John F. Kennedy's quote "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Which was fine, perhaps, once upon a time. But times change. Societies and governments change. And the benefits that each of us reap from them also change.
I suppose I asking a question which is fundamental to the existence of our society: what benefit do I gain from it? And if I reach the point of not gaining benefit from it, why do I support it?
I am sure there are those that would make the argument that I do benefit through things such as food I can be assured to eat, water I can drink, sleeping at night without fear, business laws that require honest reporting, and so on. And you can make an argument for that - at the same time admitting that many or most of those benefits derive from the local government, not the larger one.
But if they would make that argument, then they must accept the counterargument as well: my money is drained away on social programs the fail and debt that ever increases; my rights are steadily pushed away; my moral stature depends no longer on my own actions but how others judge my actions.
I again ask the question: If in the benefit/debit columns of my interaction with the government and society I reach a neutral point or even a point where I no longer deriving benefit, what impact does that have on the social contract?
People participate in things because it benefits them. When they are no longer benefited, they will drop away and drop out. And those that somehow counted on all of that support - financial, moral, even just the sheer weight of population numbers - will be surprised when their great dreams and plans come to naught.