There is not one single social contract that we all must subscribe to. It's much more nuanced than that, with lots of little obligations here and there. Some are more valid than others, and the individual should have a right to decide which to be a part of. Not paying taxes is a much different violation of a social contract than not paying for health insurance, especially considering the very legitimate argument that the ACA penalty is unconstitutional in itself.
It perhaps ignores the validity of your approach to your relationship to the state, but it's a stretch to say it's naïve.
FWIW, I used to be solidly in the "social contract" camp, and over the last few years have walked out of that camp, na'er to return.
Want to see how that argument feels when reversed?
"Your blind adherence to the maintenance of the state, despite vast evidence that it's a force of oppression shows an incredibly naïve view of the goodness and trustworthiness of man and institutions composed of members of the human race."
See? not much fun. Lets get a little more nuanced, and talk about, perhaps, at which point might a society by improved by ignoring the "social contract". Do you think that point CAN be reached? If so, when? What must we do when it IS reached?