RE: Isn't the "social contract" a little bit overdue? And who agreed to it in the first place?
I feel while you get a majority of idea, you miss a key point of the social contract theory as described by Hobbes and Rousseau. What is their conception of ultimate freedom? It is the state of nature. In this state, there are no property rights. People can do whatever they physically want to. If I'm stronger than you, than your property is now mine. That's ultimate freedom. You can kill me, and I can kill you. Force dominates and cooperation is optional.
The idea behind the social contract is to establish a intermediary party that the individuals have to follow in order to have some civil society. Even in your ideal society you need some intermediary principle or entity to enforce the rules. Just because the implementations to this point are mediocre, doe not invalidate the idea of the contract.
You agree to the contract in order to discourage some person down the street from walking into house, killing you in our sleep, and then taking all of your stuff. A social contract is not altruistic, it is practical and selfish. Although you sacrifice your ultimate freedom, you gain an entity that acknowledges your rights in the first place. Private property only exists without the social contract to the extent that you can defend it by force. The social contract serves as a means of agreement that using force when you please is not acceptable.
Even if you create a society where everyone lives in peace without government, the sovereign (intermediate entity) becomes the people. There is still a social contract there, whether you like it or not. You still follow and agree to some rules, right?
" even in your ideal society you need some intermediary principle or entity to enforce the rules.."
Yes. Voluntaryism and a government who's only job is to protect my property rights. My land, my things, my body.
For it to be a real social contract, it needs to be voluntary. Someone would have to go to my door and present an idea to me, and I would have to purchase that idea, and sign my name.
It is just about things being voluntary or not. Taxes are theft, because I never signed to pay them. If I had the choice I could have signed it..I don't know. Maybe? But most likely I would join another society with no redistribution of money. I would like someone to protect me and my property, so perhaps police and military is ncie to have. Other than that what use is the Government?
I follow and agree to certain rules if they match my principles - because to me there is good and evil. I also follow some other rules, but that's because I have to under the threat of a Gun. I don't believe in God, but I believe in good deeds and bad acts. I'm not a relativist. I follow my own morality and my own values. And there is some objectivity to that. No one has a value or morality that is " I try to kill as many people as possible, and at every chance I have I steal or rape" Those are not great ideals or values. They are objectively evil ideals.
Thanks for the comment man!