Unlike pragmatism or the philosophy of mind, social contract theory is not so hot a topic among academic philosophers in youtube land. Rousseau (and Locke and Hobbes) are, of course, part of the canon and so taught as historical ideas, but I at least can't name any big time current "social contract" philosophers like some of the folks I've presented in past weeks here for these other topics.
Something I did want to throw out for discussion is libertarianism and its relation to social contract theory. Here's one of the more coherent videos of several I ran across of this sort:
The commentator here (Stefan Molyneux) claims to disprove social contract theory using bad logic and a bogus analogy. He begins in his "The SC as Justification" slide by mis-characterizing government as presenting itself as an arbiter of morality (whereas of course the relationship between these is purposely complex). Then in "The SC in Action" makes an obviously illogical move of giving some characteristics of the social contract (that it is implicitly made, geographically directed, and requires duties of citizens without requiring duties of the government to citizens, i.e. it's unilateral) and saying that these characteristics imply that "all contracts that fulfill these requirements must also be just." From there, he shows that this leads to absurd conclusions, which it does.
What he's trying to do is give the "essence" of the social contract and draw conclusions from that. This is like characterizing what traits make people count as worthy for consideration in our moral decision-making and then saying "ah, I see your characteristics include horses too!" That form of argument can work in that particular case, but here, the traits that Molyneux gives for the social contract aren't those essential ones that give it its force.
What makes the social contract valid (to the extent that it is; I don't want to actually commit to that) is the fact that we live in a representative democracy. We get to vote, and we have safeguards in place are supposed to prevent tyranny of the majority (i.e. we can't just all vote to kill off the redheads or whatever dumb thing we've come up with), so the government's decisions represent each of us, even if, as is inevitable, we as individuals don't always (or even usually) agree with its decisions.
This is the way that it's supposed to work, and this description points out where the system can go wrong: a government disconnected from public will at various points (in legislating or enforcing laws) or inadequate safeguards for minorities. Addressing these problems is not all a matter of just preventing corruption: there are legitimate theoretical and practical issues to be worked out on an ongoing basis re. how to balance these two goals and what mechanisms best serve them.
So if you're going to complain about taxes, then, you have to do so by saying either "The tax system is unfairly targeting me!" (i.e. as a minority, though maybe the minority is "rich people" or "smokers" or some other group that the majority doesn't feel so bad about squeezing) or "We only have taxes because the government is disconnected from the people," which is arguable re. many specific measures but which doesn't in general provide a way to argue for the illegitimacy of all taxation, which is what this brand of libertarianism pushes for.
Ultimately, this guy and his ilk can't be argued with any more than the anti-pragmatic Baptist minister, as will be clear if you look at his channel. I find extreme views like this fairly entertaining, so long as you can easily escape them; having this guy as your roommate would not be fun.