Myth of the social contract

Government in any form is often justified by soc con theory. The soc con is literally based on a fiction - the state of nature. There has never and never will be a state of nature. Nature always throws up spontaneous order. In humanity this can be the family unit of social organisation or simply the mutually beneficial behaviour of not killing each other cos its counter productive - too much effort/risk. Much better to warily avoid your fellow caveman or mutually cooperate. The savage is a complete falsehood propagated and popularised by the rational unwitting behaviour of rulers to justify and perpetuate their governance over you. Your surrender of your liberty to them from fear of this unreal savage state of nature and desire for safety and order that they claim to be exclusively able to provide is but a lie that is the cheapest most efficient form of slave holding.
Calvin identified this when he said monarchs pretend to reign "by the grace of god" but the pretense was a "mere cheat" so they could reign without control.

All soc con theorists support a monopoly ruler. Their states of nature are populated by irrational animals thus prone to violence. All their solutions posit surrendering liberty to some form of government thus imbued with monopoly use of violence. None saw that violence cannot be the solution to social organization or that human beings are naturally rational and are capable of polycentric anarchic order.

Hobbes correctly thought that humans would naturally exercise their freedom to harm others who threatened their self preservation. But then irrationally suggested men gain rights when they subject to political authority. Completely ignoring that this same theoretical individual entering the soc con has just come from a state of nature where by definition he enjoyed unlimited freedom. So why would he give up his freedom in exchange for less freedom now called rights?

An alternative argument that we gain rights when we observe those same rights in others can be achieved through voluntary polycentric freemarket law. Noone could sell.a law that did not operate reciprocally. The voluntaryst aspect would maintain far more of our natural liberty than subjugation by force under a monopoly soc con.