Are you serious? That's almost the basis for our (U.S., Western) form of government. "Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented

Are you serious? That's almost the basis for our (U.S., Western) form of government. "Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler (or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract The only thing you're actually arguing against is applying it mindlessly regardless of any other concerns, as in, the reduction of violent crime is sufficient in and of itself to be a "better end" -- in actual fact, we've seen separate but equal doesn't work. As an aside, look at people like Marcus Garvey. As an attempt to resolve the conflict in America between black and white, complete segregation has been seriously proposed; it was not (entirely) stopped or prevented due to ethical/moral arguments. As a slightly silly example, you have a family who has been living in a home for 100 years, but the neighborhood they live in has shifted. Perhaps you use eminent domain to remove them. Now multiply that by thousands -- will they all move peacefully? Where are you getting the money for this? etc. etc. > Even if there are good effects from legislated prices, that doesn't necessarily mean the government should dictate employment contacts. Doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't either. I would argue the better solution would be mandatory union participation. Unions would equalize the power imbalance between the individual worker and, say, McDonald's, without the government dictating terms. But I'm guessing you, or people who also support your argument, would balk at that as well.