It has been said that the people of a nation or a society have entered into some sort of "social contract."
Usually this is part of an argument that people must submit to the controls of government and pay taxes as the price for living in a peaceful, orderly and secure society.
But a contract requires knowing persons who voluntarily enter into an agreement to accept obligations in exchange for some benefit they expect to receive.
The essence of a contract is that individuals can choose to enter it or not.
The history of the development of the state, i.e., government, shows us that these institutions arose out of conquests.
One tribe or group would conquer another and exact tribute (taxes) in exchange for allowing the conquered people to live.
Usually the ruling tribe would provide protection for the conquered people against other marauders.
Rather than a "social contract", the relationship is more accurately described as a "protection racket".
[....]
The reality is: there is no social contract.
Government should be seen for what it is - a group of people who have substantial power at their disposal which they can and do use to control the rest of the citizenry in a great variety of ways.
The ultimate question then is, "What is the legitimate use of government power and what standards should be used to determine whether government power is being employed legitimately?"
'Libertarianism in One Lesson' by David Bergland
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0940643006