"As an aside, I've remarked before that the word "social" essentially negates whatever comes next: social security isn't secure; social justice isn't just; social contracts aren't contracts; etc."
Stipulating for this that social security isn't secure, that social justice isn't just, and that social contracts aren't contracts, it does not obviously follow that this is so because the word "social" essentially negates whatever comes next.
You're having trouble switching gears from debate mode to humor mode. I merely observe, and it is humorous, that the adjective "social" is always applied to something that (1) isn't whatever the word actually means, and (2) is dicey enough to need an air of legitimacy.
So for example, we say "social security" when we mean "a ponzi scheme in which money is stolen, most of it spent for other things, and a teeny bit returned to the original victims." Naturally, "social security" sounds much better--by virtue of the fact that "security" is a good thing. The "social" in front tells you that whatever comes next doesn't describe it; that a politician is trying to sell you something; and that you're about to take it up the tailpipe.