>"It's unfortunate that three-year olds are not in a position to rationally choose to rather live in Somalia, and that they therefore become part of a social co

>"It's unfortunate that three-year olds are not in a position to rationally choose to rather live in Somalia, and that they therefore become part of a social contract they never actually signed – but can you come up with a better arrangement? It's very similar with parents, btw." What about the rights of the parents? They are the custodians of the child's consent until they are able to make their own decisions. I.e. Their right to choose that their children not be part of some abstract contract even if they are themselves? Of course, then statists like to suggest "Well then, move to Somalia if you don't like it". I've had this discussion, in multiple forms, starting in different spots, multiple times. It eventually gets to the Somalia suggestion (to the point of cliche), and the only logical point to make after that is: "States have taken up ALL land, including Somalia". Until you can offer people an alternative, or a logical and systematic way to get out of this weird contract of yours, then you can't possibly say that it's voluntary. Maybe even allow them to pay back all the "benefits" they have gotten, if it is even possible for such wishy-washy concept. The problem is, you don't allow it. Even the richest persons on this world would not be "allowed" to "buy" their freedom from the "social contract". Because you use this wonderfully magical argument that says that all your wealth is owed to the "safe" society that government has provided. Convenient, yet choice and consent is magically not required.