We support equality except at work!Follow

Liberty requires random murders, rapes and theft. The second you refuse to allow me to murder, rape and steal you are depriving me of my precious God granted Liberty.

What if I promise to only murder blacks and homosexuals? Is it okay then? I mean, refusing to murder whites is a type of discrimination and we all know that discrimination is the very soil from which the Tree of Liberty grows.

One does not decide to be born into a society; one may, if they have the means (big if), decide to leave it, but there's no choice to live in the state of nature. In the original, of course, there is no actual choice, it's just a rhetorical device to justify monarchy. The argument is 'obviously you'd choose this because this is better than chaos, which is the alternative' not 'you have chosen to accept this restriction, legitimating it'. This has the advantage of actually making sense. You can use a social contract as a metaphor to justify society based on necessity, but not based on consent. The trick is, of course, that it seems as though it does both, even though the latter is utterly senseless. That's where the rhetorical power comes from.

I wasn't specifically referring to either, so I'm not sure how being "open" would be a difference. If you misunderstood, my point is that in public nude beaches, first timers probably walk around with erections. The veterans probably do not. Actually, I heard that one can be fined if they do. Those heterophobes!

I refuse to be outdone...

You don't deserve to be born into society, society is born unto you. See, if (and only if), society has given you the choice to live, then you may live and/or leave society. Of course, that choice is prudent among rhetorical and chaotic men to justify their restrictions, only to legitimize it. The advantage of actually somewhat making logical sense to the man born into society is that it is similar to a contractual metaphor to justify the necessity of society, but not at the decision made by opinion. The solution is, most obviously, is that it appears to be a conglomerate of both, even though the either is not of any need. This, my friend, is where the rhetorical power comes from.

Wow, I'm getting a lot of ******* feedback recently, aren't I?

Participation in society isn't a choice. Therefore, choice doesn't justify society, either in general or in any particular case. That's not the argument that Hobbes makes. Other people might (and have) hijack social contract theory to make that argument, but it doesn't actually make sense because participation in society isn't a choice. Misusing the language of contract and choice (with ref. to a hypothetical scenario) is a rhetorical tool to make arguments from necessity seem more persuasive. That is the essence of social contract theory.