Muh Social Contract!

Many works of political philosophy make reference to a social contract – the idea that governments arose from a mutual, universally recognised need and were created so they could benefit all. But no one has ever pointed to any historical evidence of such a social contract actually being formulated or agreed to.

A contract has no validity if nobody ever agreed to it.

The fiction of the social contract has been used to promote a more politically important idea, that the state is a voluntary, necessary and inevitably arising institution created for the betterment of humanity.

A special status for this institution (arising from a fictional agreement) is necessary to confer a different ethical code on state actors than that which pertains to mere ordinary humans. Theft, kidnapping and murder become taxation, incarceration and waging war.

Without this ethical double standard no state’s existence could ever be justified.

What are the details of the social contract and when did I agree to it?

If by remaining in the state’s territory I am agreeing to the social contract, does that mean a slave who doesn’t try to escape the plantation agrees to being owned?

If by using government provided services I am agreeing, then does a slave who drinks the water provided by his master agree to this relationship?

If being allowed to vote counts as agreement, what does a slave who can choose between bread and porridge have to complain about? They have a choice and can change the system!