Try something you've never tried before. Try saying what a contract is, what a "social" contract is, and how the Constitution is one. You'll find it eye opening.
Yet another in a long line of unsupported juvenile "yo momma" type comments.
On the contrary, you're the one who expressed incredulity that I should keep mentioning Hobbes in this context. Such incredulity can only mean one thing: you don't understand where Hobbes fits into the picture. Which is consistent with the fact that you've never tried to define "social contract," and appear not to know what one is. I, on the other hand, have defined it several times now.
I was commenting on your weird bit about gerbils, izzy. Read much?
That's why I mentioned the invincibility of ignorance. You're incredulous that I should claim that we're descended from a creature resembling a gerbil. If you were familiar with the oldest known placental mammal, Eomaia Scansoria, you would also know that it did indeed resemble a gerbil. Here's another picture for you:
As I said, your incredulity can only be attributed to ignorance. The pattern is quite consistent. I remark that tribal structures, which are supposedly "social contracts," are in fact found in every species of mammal, and hence by inference were found among Eomaia Scansoria some 75 million years ago.
This proves that social structure is not at all the product of rational thought, but is rather the evolutionary product of parental caretaking. If no thought is involved, then it's abundantly clear that no agreement is involved. And if no agreement is involved, then whatever it is, it certainly isn't a contract. When you keep asserting otherwise, with no attempt at proof, you're crediting the human mind with something that has much more to do with the human breast.