If you live in Iran? Yes.
The Social Contract doesn't apply in places like Iran, where the Western concept of natural rights
, which is the basis for the Social Contract, is not accepted.
You cannot have it both ways. The concept of social contract (Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, ...) contradicts moral relativism. Unless you are talking about a different social contract. If by social contract you simply mean unwritten law
, then you can have no qualms about Jimmy Carr and his tax scheme. It's legal as defined by the State, so it's fine. As far as there's clearly written law, one wouldn't have to guess the unwritten law. I'm assuming he's not using a clear loophole against the spirit of the law, as that's illegal and so far everybody from the government agreed Carr's scheme is clearly legal (I guess it's only morally right when party donors do it).
Taxation is not a "post-hoc rationalisation of some people's desire to control the lives of others". It is how society functions for the good of as many as possible. Without taxation, you have no roads, firemen, army, sewage, clean water and so on.
If you don't want to pay tax, don't consume any of those services, go live in a cave or something.
You do love sweeping generalisations, don't you. Let's abolish private property then.
If you justify and approve any level of spending and confiscation from the State, be sure it can grow to need absolutely everything you produce and possess.
Roads, firemen, army, sewage, clean water, illegal wars, corrupt politicians, benefit scroungers, etc all are sustained by the taxpayer but there is no justification to put an unreasonable level of burden on particular individuals while others make no effort to contribute and happily contribute to the burden. Some control must be put on the level of spending, on what must be covered by spending, and also on the burden you can put on contributors.
Jimmy Carr contributes far more than most of us, at over 1M a year on his income alone (I'm sure he contributes far more in VAT paid, tax on his tickets, tax on energy he consumes, all sorts of tax paid by people he employs, etc). I'd hardly label him a problem to the sustainability of the system. I'd say people like Cameron would have a much harder time justifying the amount of money he costs