Today we had an interesting debate about compulsory health insurance. However, the most useful material came as the principle of “no social contract”.
Roughly speaking social contract means that people are willing to give something to the whole society (government) to receive something back from them. For example, to pay taxes and receive state police.
The debater could then argue that such system is not needed anymore. It can be argued that people change societies, countries and governments and that people do not need to give up more and more of their assets to receive something from the whole society (government).
Further one could argue that society (government) should only provide individuals with basic tools for decision making. And this ability of decision making would make the whole society stronger.
In addition, people who are weaker but be more motivated to improve and achieve more. Under the principle of social contract; however, such weak people could just obey society’s (government’s) norms and receive support from the government. Meaning that there is no motivation to become stronger.