No, since in standard contract doctrine as it applies in any other context, there are at least three important principles about valid contracts:

1. Both parties must have a reasonable way of opting out, where this does not include one party being compelled to undertake enormous costs that the other party has no independent right to impose on him. For example, I cannot make you an employment offer and then declare that if you don’t agree to work for me, you must signal this nonagreement by cutting off your left arm; that is not a reasonable way of opting out.
2. If one party explicitly states that he does not agree, then one cannot claim that he implicitly agreed anyway.
3. Both parties must undertake obligations to each other, and if one party explicitly repudiates his obligations under the contract, then the other party is no longer bound to do his own part.

The putative social contract violates all three principles.

First, because governments have taken control of every habitable land mass on the planet, there is no way of opting out.

Second, even if you explicitly state that you don’t agree, the government will still impose its conditions on you.

Third, the government recognizes no obligation to do anything for you. This position has been established in a number of court cases in which plaintiffs have sued the government for negligently failing to protect them; in each case, the court summarily dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the government isn’t obligated to protect any specific individual.