Government of any kind is immoral

Social Contract theory has a few problems. I will address some of them here. As for the effectiveness of government as a protector, that is another conversation. Governments in a way can be effective at some things in terms of creating order in society. To the extent they are effective, is debatable. The question however, is the morality of government not its efficacy. As for the social contract here are some things to consider: Assumptions of the social contract and refutations: 1) There is a social contract: Citizens, by joining a society, consented to some set of common rules, so they are morally bound to obey them. This first point of the social contract is fictional. There are no historically instances in which all people in a geographical area gave affirmative consent to a state. These concepts exist mostly in the writings and heads of theorists. After the beginning of a society citizens don't choose their states. They are born somewhere and are bound by rules they did not actively agree to. Also, if life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short(as Hobbes argued), then in what sense can I be said to have consented to its alternative? If I'm drowning in the sea, and you offer me a 'contract' to allow me onto your boat, that contract is made under duress. 2) Do citizens consent to the social contract by voting? Aside from the fact that many states(governments) are not democracies(or representative republics), voting is generally optional in which case many citizens(more than half in the USA) do not give consent by voting as they don't participate. Can citizens who vote for the losing candidate in the election be said to be consenting to their rule when they did not support the eventual ruler? 3) Well..if you don't like a country you can leave like Socrates argued. Choosing between two violent or immoral alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a woman is told by her parents that she has to choose between two men, but has to marry one of them can it be said that she is choosing marriage? The only way to know if people are making a free choice in favor of governments is if they have the choice not to choose a government which is feasibly impossible in modern society. 4) You argued that citizens consent to the social contract by receiving government services (welfare, public highways, police protection) If a slave accepts a meal from his master is he or she not still a slave? In many cases, because I have no choice but to live under a government(see above) and because government restricts or eliminates competition in areas(such as roads, schools-restricted I know there are private schools, and the military). Also because the state forcibly takes my resources(taxation) and converts them to services(many of which one may disagree with) and I have to take those services does not mean I consent to them. Given the brutal nature of the social contract and that it is not really a contract at all and is inescapable I would argue that force is initiated upon one and that initiation of force is immoral. That makes government as we know it immoral in behavior. Having institutions that are voluntary to help organize and guide society are always going to be needed. The problem with the state is that the relationship is NOT voluntary. It is the involuntary use of initiatory force without express consent that makes the state immoral thus one should vote for pro in this debate.