Post your best argument against social contracts.

don't try to trigger me fgt

File: saint-francis-de-sales.jpg (628KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 960x1280px

Social contracts work just fine if they're based on religion.

Without the unifying force of a common spiritual bond, there will always be tension in a social contract. Without the impetus towards charity and selflessness, everyone will fulfill the contract JUST enough to avoid them getting in trouble with everyone else, and their self-interest will compel them to seek whatever ways they can find to cheat the contract.

It's a workable system, but hardly ideal. It doesn't produce the best of men.

File: fa.jpg (19KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 200x200px

>he doesn't have sittlichkeit

>>9382369
There's already a natural common spiritual bond.

I didn't sign nothin'.

File: 1480528414964.jpg (22KB, 200x260px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 200x260px

>>9382361

there's none
Hobbes and Rosseau were right

Check primitive societies without states - it was all endless war and bloodshed

>>9382512
Those things are unavoidable because of the nature of non-persons and a state does nothing to change that, because a state does nothing to remove non-persons. A state just hides the non-persons until their gradual sabotage causes a collapse.

>>9382361
The best argument against social contract is that it's not a social contract. It's a contract with the state. And the first state began when some bandit decided to invade a territory, enslave its habitant and call them "citizens".

>>9382535
why do u assume the first state wasn't defensive? some faggots tried to raid someone's harvest and the most alphas bros were like "fuck outta here faggot" and said anyone who's down with our crew is a citizen of this shit, just let me get some of that surplus when harvest comes around and u good senpai