“I disagree here. There is a contract between the people and their government in the form of laws.”
Could you expand upon this? Is the contract that in order to live here that you must agree to abide by the law? If you were to write such a contract in legal terms, what would it look like?
“More so, the people and the government are perpetually working the terms of this agreement, adding, taking away, and changing the rules that are agreed upon.”
Who are the people and what constitutes agreement between the people? How would negotiation necessarily imply any sort of contract or voluntarism? Those who make contracts negotiate, but not all negotiation implies a valid contract. You are likely to negotiate with someone with a gun. You might come to an agreement that in exchange for all of your money, your life will be spared. This is of course isn't a valid contract as it lacks voluntarism. When the risk of retaliation is too great, negotiation is the next best method to prevent the most amount of inflicted force.
Participating in a representative democracy can just the same be a defensive action for the party who is affected negatively by a proposed law. A simple reductio ad absurdum would to take into consideration a law that would tax 100% of group A's income and distribute it to group B. It would be difficult to argue that group A's participation in voting against the measure has any validity on the morality of the agreement. The situation is simply group B using an institution with a gun to take all of group A's money. Resisting the gun of the government can't go well for obvious reasons, therefore the only option of self defense is to participate in this process of voting against it. It must be rationalized that if group B demanded 1-99% of group A's income, that this wouldn't change the morality as force is still being used to achieve and end. It is not as though burglary becomes morally neutral or good when only a little is stolen.
Also realize it cannot be proposed that negotiating with the government provides validity to any agreement as there would be no rationally proposed action that invalidate it. Logically, if taking an action validates a process, then not taking an action must invalidate the process. With a representative democracy, this is not the case.
“Your example about the black and red suit is grossly misleading, as the government and the people would never agree to such a ludicrous idea, and in your example these rules are SIMPLY implied, nowhere are they written. All laws and regulations between the government and the people are written down, as well as their interpretations where necessary through the use of court cases.”
I believe you are misinterpreting my claim. To make myself clear, an implied contract has limited in that there is only very little can be conveyed through implication. It is certainly implied that when you are in someone's house, you follow their rules. But it does not follow that by being in their house that you have agreed to their rules until having been made aware of the rules and agreeing to them.
Implications also lack any ability of legal specificity. It can be implied that you are going to have to pay for a service. It can not be implied that you are going to have to pay for a service in pesos instead of dollars.
It is difficult to respond to the rest as there are primarily just claims being made. It is difficult to respond to a claim that has nothing supporting it. This isn't to say that nothing could support it or that it wouldn't be impossible to figure out what evidence would support such and to refute such evidence, but this tends to never work out.
But to further my argument that the social contract cannot be considered voluntary, I will expand upon the video I posted as the logic might be a bit tough to understand the first time through.
In order for any theory to be considered valid, it must be internally consistent. This is well accepted in any scientific disincline. A theory proposing that all rocks fall downward except for these rocks cannot be considered a valid theory. A theory proposing that the price of a good can rise and fall simultaneously cannot be considered valid as it contradicts itself. A theory proposing that something is A and at the same time the opposite of B cannot be taken seriously. The same theoretical rigor must also be applied to moral rule. A theory cannot be argued that it is wrong for people to kill people, except for these people. A theory cannot be proposed that it is wrong for people to steal from other people, except this group of people can steal. A theory cannot be proposed that says the initiation of force is wrong, with these exceptions.
Continuing on with this idea, it must be reasoned that contract theory must be subjected to internal consistency. For example, it cannot be proposed that no contracts involving X can be made between these people, but contracts involving X can be made between these people. The claim self detonates because if the people who cannot make X contract are considered people, and the people who can make X contract are considered people, then there cannot be two contradictory outcomes. It is just like making a theory that these rocks obey gravity and these rocks do not.
If the theory of a social contract is valid, then it must be universally valid. The validity of the theory cannot depend on the institution involved because then it isn't a theory. It would be like having a theory that rape is universally immoral, except when done by balding men in their 50's. It can't be argued that it is immoral for institution to use a social contract, except for this one institution called government. To say otherwise would be arguing outside the bounds of reason and evidence as it is impossible to argue against what is not even a theory.
If an institution called Ford sent a letter to everyone in a particular neighborhood stating that they will be delivering a car to them whether they want it or not, that it will cost for it will be $30,000, and if they don't want to participate in the contract, that is fine, they just have to move to a different neighborhood, would anybody take such a contract seriously? Would any court even consider it a contract?
If an institution called the Government sent a letter to everyone in a particular neighborhood stating that they will be building new roads on your behalf, whether you want it or not, that it will cost you $500, and if they don't want to participate in the contract, that is fine, they just have to move to a different neighborhood, would anybody take such a contract seriously? If consistent logic were to be applied, such a contract would be just as valid as the one from Ford.
This is quite the tricky subject to discuss and think about because there is such a large cloud of fog of words to see through. The first step to seeing through the cloud is to ensure any theory is consistent and internally logical. Again, there can't be a theory that no institution can enforce a social contract, except the institution called government.
To go further, if the contract with Ford would not be considered voluntary, then neither could the contract with the government. The very fact that the contract with Ford wouldn't be enforced is a sign that there is in-voluntarism involved, which necessary implies force. Through this logic, the relationship between government and person must be considered involuntary, therefore there is force involved, therefore it is immoral as force is immoral.