So, you are forcing people to accept something regardless of their opinion.
Isn't that the principle of authoritarianism?
Sure, you have vote, you may ot many not have freedoms depending of the country, but did that person accepted that social contract?
What is the difference with slavery? The social contract is basically slavery of born children to do whatever the "nation" says. This is not different than a slave and their owner.
What the hell are you talking about? You just don't seem to understand... I don't know... words?
The concept of social contract is descriptive. "Descriptive" as in it "describes" something. It has nothing - as in 0% - to do with forcing people to accept anything or authoritarianism.
Not a lawyer, but: When you order food at a restaurant, the law assumes an implied contract—you agree to pay for what you consume. Even without a written agreement, courts recognize this as a valid contract based on common practice.
I wonder if a future society can allow geniuses like you to opt-out of the social contract, and there'd be outlaws roaming the lands, ready to rob you that evening, hey you agreed to opt out of police protection!
once again, this is an implication that I ordered it. If you put a gun to my face and demand that I order a McBurger, that does not mean that we entered a contract.
As Hume called it, a convenient fiction. It isn't how any government came to be, and a contract imposed under threat of force isn't valid anyway.
I'm reminded also of that meme cartoon with the annoying person coming out of a hole and observing the suffering citizen is still participating in society, "how interesting".
Depends on where. There's a place on Earth that has an actual bona fide document titled "social contract", enacted and regularly updated via referendums:
Which one? Hobbes's, Rousseau's, Locke's, or Spencer's? Generally, these so-called contracts are morally fashionable bandwagons attempting to appeal to some vague authority. They lack at least two elements that make a contract in the proper sense of the term: mutual consideration and clear, well-defined, promises of fixed duration and scope. There's no contractual obligation to keep a society "alive" indefinitely and for its own sake anymore than there was one to keep the British Empire in tact.
You can have the anarchy you desire in a cabin in the woods or on some a random island away from society. You won't have to adhere to common decency or common currency there.
