I generally agree with what you're discussing, but I have some critique:
There's a lot of overly vitriolic content in this post. I would recommend toning down on that a bit. If I had to guess (since you've been writing about anarchy for 20+ years -- I only knew of this after I finished reading the article. As I was reading I figured you were a male from my generation or younger who was hyper anti-establishment) you're probably doing that because of America's general apathy, laziness, and subservience to the government's bureaucratic complacency, but to someone who doesn't know you it's coming off more like, "the government did something that really pissed me off and because of that I'm going to bitterly rage about it for the rest of my life". That's what I picked up as I read the article.
In terms of the arguments you put forth, I'm not sure they're exactly addressing the root of the issue. You are correct, nobody would consider it sane if you tried to stake a claim over the entirety of North America, and nobody would consider it sane if you pointed a gun at them and demanded half of their earnings. You also did not rally a group of influential individuals, organize a massive plan, and win a war against the largest empire on the planet with your massive balls of steel. Why would people submit to you in such a way? Why do people willingly submit to their government so? I know my answers to those questions. They're likely not far off from your own, but the absence of such questions in the article is what is urging me to write a detailed response.
The issue with the social contract from a political perspective is that it is indeed not a contract unless both parties are agreeing to initiate. The philosophical idea of the social contract shouldn't go any further than your example of inviting people to your home. People choose to enter your home of their own volition, and you choose to invite them. Obviously no contract is ever written, and things like trust are assumed without being spoken. If we had to openly discuss such nonsense with every person we wanted to invite to our house the discussion would never end.
I believe we tend to assume things like this (insofar as the social contract applies in the previously mentioned way to our social relationships and the like) in order to simplify them so that we can get on with life. In the same way I believe people choose to abide by the existing governmental structure because overthrowing and replacing it would be unimaginably difficult and painful. I'm not saying that is the right course of action -- in fact I would consider myself an Ancap as you seem to be. I suppose the heart of the issue I would like to see addressed more often by people is: what is the best way to spread this knowledge to people who don't want to hear it?
If you watched Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" back in y2k, at the outset, while a SC House member, and asked by his friends to vote "yay" on the levy to raise war funds and join other states in the effort, he asked outloud to the delegation: "Why should I give such sacrifice to sever ties with one tyrant 3,000 miles away, just to become subject to 3,000 tyrants, one mile away?" Probably THE most important line in the whole movie............
Found it.