> Distinctions between governments and mutual agreements go by the wayside
> if we assume that everyone involved voluntarily agreed to live by the
> rules of their society. Newborn children are a sticky issue with this
> approach, since they are born into society without agreeing to anything.
> Generally you can consider that while minors they are bound to obey
> their parents, and then when older they have a choice between accepting
> the rules of society or leaving.
This is a convenient fiction for people who like big government, but it doesn't have much to do with reality. No government ever asks its citizens to agree to its rules - you are stuck with them whether you like it or not. Leaving is also an illusory option - there is literally no place on Earth where you can go to escape the rule of bog government. Besides, you can only leave if the government lets you - and the bigger it gets, the less likely it is to let you go.
I would be the first to agree that a group of people setting up a new society in ungoverned space should be able to create any social contract they like. However, here on Earth we are stuck with a system no one agreed to, that no one is allowed to leave. IMO, that puts important constraints on the policies that we can endorse with a clear conscience.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I