Everyone has agreed to The Social Contract™, which gives the state the right to control people "for the greater good" (or insert other excuse), taxing them and forcing them to follow laws.
The "social contract" has the same problems as any magic contract; it is better referred to as "the state-imposed burden". It is not a contract (no definition, no agreement), but a burden (justifies arbitrary harm), and it is imposed by force, rather than being voluntary or to any degree "social". (DBR)
If the argument is made that statism is moral and justifiable because of a "social contract", the implication is that the "social contract" is a valid form of contract. If "social contracts" are valid. Then any "social contracts" made by any persons must be valid. Remember, there is no special pleading for the state. Therefore, a business like Walmart, could simply ship $500.00 worth of groceries and other goods to your house every month without your consent, and proceed to bill you. If you disputed this, they could then tell you that if you didn't like it, you were free to move out of your neighborhood.
In accordance with social contract logic, I would simply create my own social contract with the government itself whereby I "tax" the government for the services I provide in the economy that they benefit from, in an amount that is equal to what they have "taxed" me. What would be the difference between these 2 social contracts? Nothing, except of course, that the state has far more violence with which to enforce their "social contract" then I do. That, of course, is the root of the matter. It's might makes right. Pay or you get shot. (JG)