[notacoward]

Counterpoint: the social contract (or treaty, or whatever term you want to use) protects both sides. It says that people or institutions that could otherwise crush you won't, in return for you following a set of basic rules and conventions. You seem very focused (to use the polite word) on how it's less freedom than you wish for, but it's also more freedom than you might have had otherwise. There's endless room to debate what those rules are or should be, but in general the social order thus created is better for everyone - including you. Cooperation brings benefits, and structured cooperation avoids the losses of endless bickering about the boundaries. The alternative to a social contract is "might is right" and it would be absurd for you to assume you'd be on the winning side of that.