Talk politics.

Ok, so in another post that I have no desire to get involved with the "Social Contract" was brought up. To which someone noted that they did not consent to it and could not withdraw from it and predictably someone else came up with the standard reply of "So you don't like it, then Leave" and this is what I do want to get into because it is such a common refrain among progressives who believe in a strongly imposed "Social Contract"

So to digress for a second, when discussing things like minimum wage and other labor laws the same people tho say "If you don't like the Social Contract then Leave" will argue that a choice which results in an unsurvivable result is not a choice. That is the employer is inherently more powerful than the worker because if the worker chooses not to accept the terms of employment the the worker often starves ergo he doesn't actually have a choice and government must protect them from the employer.

So how do you reconcile the two arguments in your heads?

I mean it is not like someone who disagrees with the "Social Contract" actually has anywhere to go. There is no unincorporated land anywhere on the planet for them to move to and lets face it, all of the nation states have remarkably similar social contracts. There is literally nowhere for them to go meaning that by the same logic you apply to labor law they still haven't got a choice.

Essentially in order to be consistent you either have to accept that a choice where one of the options is impossible to live with is still a choice or begin to advocate the creation of a nation somewhere on the earth for those anti social souls who do not want to be part of your social contracts.