Membership in society must be voluntary. Otherwise, the individual is justified in resisting any rules and regulations placed on him. So there must be a basic agreement that we are all willing to agree to. In the past people have agreed to be members of society for any number of reasons...good and bad. But today, we have reached a point in evolution where we must question the rational behind our engagement in this social contract. We must recognize the obligations and rights that are implicated by our voluntary acceptance. But, whatever the basic contract is, we must have unanimity, and no laws nor regulations may infringe upon the basic contract lest it be rendered void. This is the basis for a rational society.
Reason and the Presumption of Reason
It is reason, and the presumption of reason, that combine to form the basic social contract. This is the underlying agreement that allowed for the development of civil society. Without this agreement there could be no communication with one another. Language would be gibberish. Without this agreement our relationships would be governed by animalistic impulse. We would not be distinct from animals. It other words, it is this agreement that makes us human.
The social contract is a relationship phenomena and as such cannot be empirically experienced. Like reason, it cannot be seen, touched, or tasted. Its existence must be deduced. We have to narrow it down through a process of deduction. Our prejudices, our myths and our irrational impulses taint this process.
There are four variations to the basic social contract:
The implied personal... (i.e., the relationship that is established between individuals from the moment they meet through its evolution up to and including their present relationship.) The formal (explicit) personal... (i.e., the marrage contract) The implied general... (i.e., cultural mores, traditions, religions) The formal (explicit) general... (i.e., Laws and regulations. The constitution. Commercial contracts.)

Laws have evolved from the implied form of social contract that specify specific performance within the basic agreement of rationality. Laws develop that preserve the basic rational relationship without ever specifying it. Example: I know of no law that specifically obliges anyone to be rational. Yet, all laws use rational behavior as an underlying standard. Law should reiterate reasonable behavior so as to avoid unnecessary conflict. The function of the courts, should be to deduce what is reasonable when a conflict results in stalemate. Unfortunately, governments often use ulterior motives in the enactment of laws. Governments are playing the power game, and concepts like right, wrong and reason are only tools of manipulation.
From this track of thought I could conclude that morality (a standard of behavior that we are obligated to uphold), and what is moral, is equivalent to rational behavior. (Morality=Reasonable Behavior=Social Contract)
For this to work, we must extend reason from the same premise, platform, or foundation. Not having a common platform is the cause of most human conflict. The remainder is caused by faulty reasoning. (Or vice versa) The ideal platform would be voluntary membership in a society of equals.
Also I could extrapolate that irrational behavior by the authorities of the society breaches the social contract. If our leaders are not obliged to behave rationally, then it is implied that: no one is obliged to be rational. The cost incurred by this breach of the social contract is chaos. Further, because the presumption of rationality is part of the basic social contract, violence is never justified, except in self-defense.