Social contract theory is the idea that men form states and/or to maintain social order. The idea that men give up some rights to a government(or any other power) to achieve and to maintain a rule of law-goes almost as far back as philosophy itself; when we moved from “studying” cosmogony(theories of creation of universe) to the formulating theories of cosmology and began progressing from fearing the wrath of Gods and what they may do to us to a more refined ontological inquisition as to how man must live while on this Earth.

The first time we see a major philosopher discuss social contract is in one of Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Crito, where he states that by staying within the Athenian state, one is necessarily agreeing to abide by the laws of it. Since the society has made what he has possible (not in the sense that he couldn’t acquire it otherwise, but that he didn’t), then when the legal system says that a person ought to be thrown in jail, the person has not the right of objection. By staying within the tenured land of the society, you have implicitly agreed to abide by whatever justice the arbiter of the state handed down to you.

John Locke and Hobbes are usually given credit for their work on social contract theory and the state of nature as if they created the concepts. Their theories, as well as Rousseau’s, pretty much propagate the same sort of idea with minor variations.

All of the theories of Social Contract have one thing in common. Since it is the idea of a “contract” is that both parties mutually agree upon it(otherwise what is the difference between slavery and free contract) it presupposes the notion that we have all consented to live under these rules? Is this true?

The most basic argument is that under a certain government, especially a constitutional one, such contract was agreed to only by a certain group of men at a certain time. Not all of those living on the land in 1776 in America expressed that they were willing to live under such law. Certainly, no one alive today had anything to do with it. If you accepted this doctrine of generational consignment, it may be said, that means it is morally or legally acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery. Similarly not all those living on the land of India in 1947 gave their explicit consent to live under such a law, most of the time the respective kings gave their citizens to the government of India(which begs the questions, did Indians really get freedom or their ownership was merely handed over to the respective Kings by the British, who then handed them to then newly formed Government of India).
Unfortunately, this in and of itself doesn’t hold water. You are allowed to get up and leave at any time regardless of whether all other land also is previously owned and tenured, because in staying you are agreeing to that state’s laws instead of any other. Even if there aren’t other options—and I believe there are, such as living in Antarctica, or things like the SeaSteading project^[1]-that isn’t the state’s fault either. That man must make cost/benefit decisions under which dominion they live under, that there is a small supply of different choices currently, is a fact that cannot be evaded, wished away, called unfair, or used as a logical or social argument under any pretext of a world in which we have scarcity and economic law.

I have found only one argument that is a defense against not abiding by the laws of the State. What we refer to as social contract makes the self-affirming supposition that we have consented to such agreement. Something being consensual can only exist if there is, was or will ever be a choice. This isn’t to say that a constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land so we must abide by it; but that any constitution, being a legally binding contract between the state and society, can only be considered valid if it was consensual.

There are two essential components of a contract: the offer and the agreement. An offer you can’t refuse isn’t really an offer, but the fact of the matter is, man is able to permit something only if he is also able to deny it. That is, since the contract says “we will give you justice and security in turn for you paying taxes and abiding by our regulations,” if we cannot refuse to sign, then there is no ways the word consent or contract can be used. If we aren’t allowed to say, “No, thank you. I promise that I will not take a dime from the State, use any of the services provided, will take the security risk and will not aggress against any of its citizens as long as the State does not agrees against me.” then there is no consent involved, and it makes this argument tantamount to slavery. The ability to refuse to acknowledge the contract wasn’t a possibility at the start of any nation and it isn’t now.

A correlation to be drawn to bring it down to its most basic form: if I am raped, does it matter that if was in the wrong place at the wrong time and if could have not been in that place, or may have gotten up and walked away if I had the means, mean that I consented to the rape?

So, what if we own the land we stay on, and never leave it because that is violating the State’s property? Does this work? No, because they claim domain over all lands, even if they don’t in any sense of the word “own” it—they do not have exclusive rights to use and dispose of it as they would. So, even if land tenure were an argument, it brings us back to the original negation. You cannot choose to not sign. Henceforth, it is not a contract.

Even if you chose to live outside of society in a plot that had been previously untouched or else did have a deed transfer, you are still subject to the laws of such a society because it is inside the eminent domain of the State^[2], and it means these people must admit they do not own their land and have to act as such because of tenure; or that expropriation right(of eminent domain) exists which is negative to social contract theory.

If people say they don’t own their own land, then they don’t own their labor because it is exists either through homesteading or contractual agreement (which are the only ways property can be acquired; mixing your labor into something unclaimed in nature or receive it through voluntary means); and if they don’t own their labor, then how much do they own their body? If people don’t own their own labor, do not have exclusive rights to use and dispose of their own body (and mind) than not only have they not made a contractual agreement, but they are incapable of doing so.

If nobody is able to consent or not consent, then this means the State enforces its contract through an agreement with itself because it derives the power to enforce such law through its own entity, which obliterates any notion of “social contract” ever construed, as far as I know.

The question of breach of contract also arises. If we did have a contract-and we don’t in any true sense of the word—then if one party does not or improperly performs its legal obligation under such contract, there is a breach which voids it as long as the aggrieved party can support his claim that the non-performing party did not perform. Even without a constitution, the whole point of social contract is for security. If we look at just this basic function, how secure do you feel? Worse yet, not only are you not secure from third parties, but also the very entity which you entered into this legally binding agreement with is the main aggressor and aggravator.
Since the State has a monopoly on the legal system, when you bring to courts the fact that you have been injured, you are asking the party which breach the contract to decide whether they have done so, making the agreement null and void; and that they must pay you reparations and admit that you do not have to live by the laws they’ve created any longer. This is as if I agreed to pay you $10 to wash my car, you wash it, and I do not pay. Now, in order for you to receive justice, you have to come to me to decide whether I have violated the terms. If I were going to decide in your favor, I would have just paid you the $10 to begin with.

We never agreed or had the chance to agree to a contract; now that we “have one” we have no way of reconciling terms if it is breached. This cannot be. If we did have any contract at all, it would certainly be an antisocial one.

(As a side note, in current times, the argument that you can just leave the State to go to another holds no water any longer. You must get your nation’s government to give you permission to leave, and then another’s permission to come. This is not “free to get up and walk away.” It is free to ask permission from those who do have a choice.)

Footnotes:

1. Seasteading Institute - http://seasteading.org/ [↩]
2. Eminent Domain is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen’s private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen’s rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner’s consent. Eminent Domain Wikipedia [↩]