Define "social contract". I say this because it must be jargon. If it is not, the question is on its face ridiculous. As has been pointed out here many times, an agreement much meet 6 specific requirements in order for it to become a contract. Absence of any single required characteristic renders the agreement non-contractual and therefore null, void, and absent of any force of law. These include offer, acceptance, capacity, intent, lawfulness, and consideration.
"No" is readily arrived upon, but let's take a close look so we understand why.
Offer: it is possible that there is in fact an offer by some party, perhaps hereinafter referred to as "government", that offers one an invitation to enter into the "social contract". There are problems with this, but let us give Themme the benefit of doubt and just call this one "good".
Acceptance: this one is of a decidedly more difficult cloth. Firstly, in order to accept, I must be aware of an offer to contract. I have personally never once experienced anything in terms of language that would have suggested to my legally untrained mind that an offer had been made. How, then, am I able to accept? Notions such as "implied consent" cut less than zero mustard in this debate. This specific detail also speaks to capacity, but we will address that shortly.
All that notwithstanding, I have made no acceptance. It has been suggested in more than a few places that the fact that I have taken a driver's license and/or other similar such rites, as it were, that these acts constitute acceptance. This notion is, of course, the purest nonsense imaginable for reasons, the details of which we need not here address. Suffice it to say that neither am I aware of any explicit offer, that implicit offers are not valid, and neither have I accepted that to which I have not been made aware as such.
I will add that lack of explicit awareness of an offer removes the element of
capacity. More on that to come.
Finally, taken as a pair,
offer and
acceptance directly and unequivocally imply with utmost vigor and clarity that contracts must be entered into on a basis of wholly non-coerced consent. Any basis other than pure freedom renders an agreement non-contractual, null, void, and absent of any force whatsoever.
Intent: in order for a contract to exist, there must be present on the part of each party the intention of entering into legal relations. This means that each party to the agreement accepts the instruments of enforcement, such as they may apply in the specific case of a given contract. Once again speaking personally, I have never even once held such intent.
Capacity: The parties to a contract must have the mental capacity for understanding that to which they apply their signatures. If I write up an agreement with an old widow wherein I am to immediately receive her entire estate in exchange for the sum of $1 and a good roll in the hay, and she signs it after I'd gotten her good and drunk, or perhaps she was suffering from some form of dementia, no contract exists because at the time of signing her capacity to judge the merits of the deal were not present in sufficient quantity.
Consideration: there MUST be an exchange. I sell you my house for $10. The consideration I receive is $10, and yours is a house. This is perhaps the one element for which "government" can make a minimally plausible argument. In exchange for your obedience ( or what have you ), you get to drive on the roads, have the protection of our fabulous men in blue, and so forth.
Lawfulness: all stipulations in an agreement must be lawful, lest no contract exist in the first place. If every other element is in place, it is still impossible for a contract to exist where you hire your neighbor to kill your wife or help you rob the bank.
Given all this, I can say with utmost confidence that, all else equal, there is absolutely no such thing as "the social contract".
The very concept of "social contract" is repulsive at its core. It is a disgusting notion for any of a large number of reasons. Perhaps worst of all is the outright and bald-faced lie that we consent to it implicitly. This is a notion that leaves me torn between a state of violent disgust and withering anger.
I am a free man. I contract with no society. I am beyond your reach, your ability to cage, beat, or kill me notwithstanding. You can take your social contract nonsense and shove it up your ass. Not you personally, mind you.
