I can throw a party and issue a public proclamation that all persons over 5'10" in height are permitted to enter my property and attend the party. At the gate I erect a "You must be this tall..." sign, and in struct my bouncers to bar entry to anyone shorter than the sign. If someone actually tries to force his way onto the property, the bouncers (who are armed) are ordered to shoot.
My neighbor can throw a party at which anyone with a shooting iron may attend. Everyone entering the gate must display his weapon to his guards, who then deputize him. Anyone failing to demonstrate that he is armed is ordered to leave the property. If he refuses, the guards--and all deputies--are instructed to open fire on the trespasser.
My neighbor on the other side, feeling bad for the rejects at my and my neighbors' houses, can throw a party and invite only persons under 5'10" who have no firearms. His bouncers will check the height of guests, and pat them down. Violators--meaning anyone who is too tall and/or who has a firearm--will be ordered to leave by his guards. Anyone attempting to force his way onto the property will be shot.
Which of those three lacks the right to carry out his plans? All three? Only the third? And how exactly do you explain this owner's lack of power over his own property?
I fail to recognize the validity of you or your neighbors making all the rules, setting terms and conditions, then declaring that others have agreed to an implicit contract you all contrived for your own convenience when I (as one of the others) deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with the blanket terms you are trying to force on me, and you threaten me with violence for not meeting an obligation to which I did not commit to when all the while you refuse to acknowledge you have any obligation under the social contract because you did not agree to it in the same way that I did not agree to your unilateral ravings.
You can’t have it both ways.
I'm beginning to see where you are getting your ideas izzy:
-- The Myth of the Social Contract --
The social contract theory of the State has it that the State is formed by the agreement of the People to establish a monopoly on legitimate violence to perform certain functions.
Social contract theorists sometimes disagree about the nature and scope of the State's functions, but most agree that they include, at a minimum, providing police, courts, & the military. Many social contract theorists argue that other things should be done by the State, but few besides anarchists question whether the State should do these things at all.
For the sake of this discussion, then, let's stick to these three. If the theory holds for them, then it may hold for others as well. If it doesn't hold for these, then it may be difficult to see how it could justify additional State functions.
On this minimal conception of the functions of the State, then, social contract theory has it that the People are obligated to pay taxes to the State and abide by its rules in exchange for the protection they get from the police, courts, & military.
In turn, the State is obligated to protect the People. In theory, there is mutual agreement between the People & the State to these terms and this substance, and there is mutual obligation. But does this theory hold in practice? In practice, is there really mutual agreement and mutual obligation about this relationship?
I will argue that, in practice, neither mutual agreement nor mutual obligation can be found in the relationship between the People and the State. Further, I will argue that, in practice, there is no such social contract.
Some argue that the Constitution of a country is the social contract. But, as Lysander Spooner pointed out, written Constitutions have "no inherent authority or obligation."
They have "no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man." At most, they can only be contracts between those who were alive and "already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts" when they are written.
Further, they can only obligate those "consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted either to express their consent or dissent in any formal manner." And, those who may authorize & be obligated to Constitutions have "no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children." ("No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority," the Lysander Spooner Reader, p. 71)
How else could the people agree to the State? "If they have done so, they can only have done so in only one of both of two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes." (ibid, p. 73)
Taxation might seem at first to indicate the consent of the governed since people seem to willingly pay the State to protect them. However, the Mafia has also claimed to "protect" people in exchange for payment. In fact, the "protection" money collected by the Mafia isn't willingly paid at all, but extorted by the Mafia from its victims. In fact, it isn't "protection" money at all, but extortion. Extortion is defined as "obtaining property from another by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." (Black's Law Dictionary, p. 302).
The Mafia's "protection" is neither freely offered nor freely accepted. Those who don't pay their "protection" money are threatened with harm to their lives, liberties, & properties.
The same thing goes for taxation. The State doesn't wait for anyone to request its "services," and, like the Mafia, its offers are ones that you can't refuse. Those who decline its offers are also threatened with harm to their life, liberty, or property.
Where the Mafia may firebomb the home or business of those who don't pay up, the State will rob, beat, imprison, and even kill those who refuse to pay their taxes because they reject the "services" the State has to offer.
Taxation may seem analogous to rent paid by a tenant to its landlord, but this analogy doesn't hold water, either. While legitimate landlords get their property by being the first to make use of it and mark it off or by getting it in trade or as a gift from someone who did, etc., the State doesn't get its territory that way.
The State gets its territory the same way as the Mafia: by violence, or the threat thereof. Thus, neither the State nor the Mafia are the legitimate owners of anything they get by means of their extortion.
Furthermore, this assumes that the State claims title to all the real estate within its territory, which isn't always the case.
In fact, land title was held "allodium" ("Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens.
An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof." - ibid, p. 39), or "fee simple absolute" ("A fee simple is an estate limited absolutely to a man and his heirs and assigns forever without limitation or condition. An absolute or fee-simple estate is one in which the owner is entitled to the entire property, with unconditional power of disposition during his life, and descending to his heirs and legal representatives upon his death intestate."