The social contract is just coercion by force with a nice fancy name so you don't murder the people who threaten you with violence and prison rape if you don't give them 40% of your income.
The system you have today is might makes right. If your government was overthrown by a foreign country and replaced, the only difference would be you would temporarily think the new government lacked legitimacy. But pretty soon you'd accept it as the new legitimate authority. This is your cognitive dissonance helping you cope with your submission to this illegitimate authority.
In most cases it is better for the powerful to not take everything from the weak. You want to incentivize them to create more for your to control/take, but never let them keep enough to challenge you.
An actual "social contract" would imply consent and the option to opt-out. But I will literally be thrown in a cage with rapists and murderers if I opt-out. That is the opposite of consent. What you call the social contract is nothing but top-down violent coercion.
Firstly - there is no social contract - you (and I) signed nothing. No contract. Just training.
Secondly - the governance structure you have now, does not care about your freedoms. I think I can make a strong case that what we have is domination of everyone by the worst of us. We are being herded into some sort of techno-dystopia, and no one in the governance structure is doing anything apart from waving things through.
Thirdly - morality is real. At family gatherings you do not need the strong arm of the law. The strong arm of the law causes the events that put people in fear, so that it has a valid pretext to step in and assumes control - with people's blessing (as they are ignorant of the true circumstances).
What you have is a large scale protection racket. And you are arguing for it. You have a lack of imagination regards alternative (free) ways to live, and are likely highly indoctrinated into the system you are trying to defend, possibly receiving some of the breadcrumbs.
Certainly when I say "social contract" it's a metaphor. I don't literally mean a legal contract that people sign. Rather, what I mean is that in exchange for the benefits of living in a society (mutual safety, cooperation on tasks, exchange of ideas, etc.) people give up some of their individual rights (e.g. they agree to recognize private property). Part of what is confusing me, is that respect for individual freedom is often one of the primary components of the social contract.
What I'm not understanding is what you are advocating. Are you saying that society should be structured around an absolute morality provided by a religion? Are you advocating some sort of neo-tribalism where society is built around extended family groups? Do you believe in anarchic utopianism where there would be no crime if there was no government?
IMO, you are advocating for the existing system, which creates the terror events, fear, etc and indoctrinates the populace to their way of thinking. This is plainly immoral - we have a society based in widely-believed lies. You can dispute my characterisation - but, if you were to research 'news', history, science, etc more deeply, I think you would find that the explanations are merely expedient devices to get you 'bought in'. The aim is to get the turkeys to vote for Christmas - or more specifically - to vote for their servitude. If you get people to go believe in whatever fresh disempowering horror has been created, despite the lack of any personal evidence, you are able to move them towards greater dependence on external governance. You are supporting enslavement.
The opposite to this, is autonomous, self-guided individuals that don't need external governance. I know what I want to do and don't want guidance. Note this is NOT an allowed option. I don't want to pay protection money (taxes) to others, especially when they use that money against me.
Ask yourself, is it acceptable that I live freely? With the ability to self-govern myself, defend myself against attacks on my freedom - eg against police levying fines, requesting licensing, etc - in order to interact in society? You'd think so.. but what we actually have is slavery that wants to call itself 'freedom'.
What I am advocating is 'anything but slavery', even covert slavery. This is easily achieved IMO, by the application of a simple moral principle - the golden rule - "do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated". If someone acts against you, you are free to take responsibility and respond as you see fit.
So, I think you have an idea that 'without the social contract, we would be run by the mafia' while failing to realise that you are already run by the very worst mafia! They are invisible to you. And, worse than that, you are parroting the nonsense beliefs they have taught you at school, fully accepting the slave mentality that they would have all their slaves proclaim, and proclaiming it to others.
