[Bayart]

That's not adressing his point. That is, it's not how a social contract works. It's collective. You break it with everyone or no one. And it's collectively enforced as well. OP's notion that his in charge of his own little arbitrarily determined social contract that inform the worth of the life of the people surounding him and has sovereignty over his surroundings is disturbing. I worry of such people being free to walk about and I sure hope he's not from my country.

[rsj_hn]

You may not understand this if you are from a foreign country, but the relationship of states to the Federal government in the US is not like the relationship of provinces to the central government in France.

The US is a truly federal system in which each state has its own constitution and its own legal code. This is not a purely theoretical point, it's quite true that there are wide variations in laws between states as well as wide variations in state constitutions, which is one reason why, for example, a lawyer has to pass the bar in each state.

And like any nation, the legal code of a state is the result of historic and ethnic forces applicable to that state. For example, my colleague, who is from Italy, was worried about his mother being mugged repeatedly by some local youths, and he was telling me how worried he was about her. The last time she went to the police, she had the following conversation:

"Why do you keep releasing them? They will just steal again."

"Yes, but they are underage, so there is nothing we can do."

"But if I refused to give them my purse, they could kill me with the knife."

"Possibly."

"But if I were to get a gun to protect myself, and then shoot them the next time they threatened me with a knife, I would be arrested."

"Of course".

"So what can I do to protect myself?"

"Just give them your purse."

"But this is the third purse they have taken, and I can't afford another. Will you pay for the purse?"

"Of course not"

"And you wont put them in jail? You will just release them again?"

"Unfortunately, we have no choice"

"If I wait for them to try to hurt me with the knife and then shoot, would I still be arrested?"

"Probably"

So there are some things that are very difficult for Americans to understand that may make sense to someone from Italy and there is bafflement going in the other direction. In the U.S. if someone threatens you with violence, you generally have the right to defend yourself and to shoot them. You never need to allow someone to physically intimidate you into handing over your belongings, and you always have a right to defend yourself. But apparently this is considered unspeakably wrong in other countries. Fair enough, to each his own. But I will point out that strict laws against defending yourself are only possible in very peaceful societies. In more violent societies, the public will not tolerate being repeatedly robbed with no possibility of self-defense -- that is the origin of mafias in Italy, basically groups for protection when the central government was too weak.

This is one example of how there is no such thing as a "universal" social contract, as all of these rules are contingent on questions like what is the likelihood of being victimized by crime. Social contract theory is itself just a philosophy - and a poor explanation of legal codes - as laws and norms are the results of evolutionary processes involving trial and error, not social contract theory.

[helloworld11]

I can't think of many social norms or government rules worse than ones that consider it despicable or, as you say, "unspeakably wrong" to have a right to defend yourself. The example of the grandmother in your text should be a clear case of someone doing exactly what is the only obvious thing when the policing system has failed at its job but criminals continue to victimize. What kind of absurd, twisted logic would claim otherwise to a constant victim without protection by the state?