And you misunderstand what social contract is - social contract is you pay because you expect things from the society.
You misunderstood what a "contract" is.
The problem is that racket is a word with a bad karma.
But obliging me to pay something by force is a racket, the definition does not depend on who does it.
The question is : is it a morally acceptable racket or not ? (I'm not attacking people defending it, I just asking for the right terminology to be used)
You don't have to pay taxes in the U.S. but you can't choose to live in the U.S., be its citizen and receive those advantages without paying taxes.
Well, actually you can. Concrete example, Halsey Minor, founder of Bitreserve. (personal bankruptcy does not prevent him to create great business and living great)
Get your money out of your personal account, use your multiple companies money, possibly off shore, for buying stuff.
You can even combine tricks : live on your company, and at the same time get all the social benefits because you have technically no income.
I have no doubt that expert on the subject have more tricks than that under their hat, without being called illegal.
But once again, I'm not against paying for a service.
I just want to be free to choose what I consume.
If other people don't want to choose, it is their problem, and nothing prevent them, from a libertarian perspective, to delegate their decisions, but don't ask me to be like them.
Let's say you live in a country with 100 million people. You may use more than your 1/100 million share of the roads.
Simple solution for such problem : Add a road tax on the gazoline, now, if I use more than my share, I will pay more than the others. Fair.
Right now, I am actually in the other case, I don't use roads (I have no car), but still pay for it.
Murray Rothbarth has another solution that do not depends on taxes.
And the law states that if you want to be a citizen and live in the U.S
Well, I don't want to be a citizen, a country meaning nothing to me, but I need a place to live.
What you say would be fair if the land of the country was property of the state. But on juridic perspective, the land is mostly owned by individuals, or moral entities, not by the state.
If I chose to live somewhere, this is a contract between me and the owner, not with the state, since it does not own the land.
Then you can say that the state owns the land because he can expropriate the owner. And you are actually right.
But so we should not pretend living in a country embracing capitalism, free enterprise with respect of your rights of ownership.
As I have no choice about that and as the sailor in "Waking life" says :
Now, I may not understand it. I may not even necessarily agree with it. But I'll tell you what, I accept it and just sort of glide along.
That is it say, I'll just organize my life to play the game with their rules, to my advantage, not fighting it.
