The Social Contract v. Class Warfare

I believe the social contract for modern day America is "I am my brother's keeper."  I may be wrong.  Others may disagree.  But, I believe that is our social contract in America today.

If I'm right, then each American has an obligation to help care for his or her fellow Americans.  They are his or her "brothers" and he or she is their keeper.  This obligation is not a choice.  It is an obligation which arises from the fact that the social contract exists and from the terms of that contract.

Likewise, each American has a right to be cared for by his or her fellow Americans.  He or she is the "brother" of every other American and they are his or her keeper.  This right is not earned.  It is a right which arises from the fact that the social contract exists and from the terms of that contract.

So, let us examine this notion with an eye to determining how the application of this obligation and this right relate to the concept of "class warfare."

I'm going to pick some easy numbers to work with.  Of course, these numbers are not real.  They are intended only to be illustrative.

Suppose there are ten members of our society.  Suppose that each of them makes 100 economic units a year.  I'm going to call those "Units."  Suppose that each of them needs 90 Units to survive.  All is well.  Everyone has a little more than he or she needs and no one has to take care of anyone else or be cared for by anyone else.  No class warfare there.

However, assume that person number 1 - I'm going to call him or her One - only makes 90 Units a year and all the rest still make 100 Units a year.  One still has as much as he or she needs and no one has to take care of One.  So, all is still well.  No class warfare there.

But, change the assumption just a little.  Assume that One becomes incapacitated in some way, perhaps even at birth, and makes zero Units a year, but still needs 90 Units a year just to survive.  All the rest still make 100 Units a year.  The social contract kicks in.  All the rest have an obligation to care for One, and One has a right to be cared for.  So, each other person contributes 10 Units a year to the care of One, and now One has 90 Units a year, enough to surivive, and so does everyone else.

Is it class warfare because the 9 are required to each contribute equally to the care of One?  Clearly, the 9 are in a different economic class than One.  After all, each has more than he or she needs and One has nothing.  So, is One, in a lower economic class than the other 9, waging class warfare on the other 9, or is One merely using the social contract exactly as it was meant to be used?  I think there is no class warfare in this example, merely the social contract in action.

Now, vary the example just a little more.  Assume that One makes zero Units a year, Two makes only 90 Units a year, and Ten makes 110 Units a year, but everyone still needs 90 Units a year, just to survive.  Now, to be clear, the assumption is that Ten has done nothing wrong in making 110 Units a year when the most anyone else makes is 100, Two only makes 90, and One makes nothing.  Perhaps Ten is smarter, or works harder, or is just luckier.  But, Ten has done nothing wrong.  The 110 Units a year are rightfully his.

In this example, if everyone contributes 10 Units to care for One, then everyone winds up with just what they need to survive, except Two and Ten.  Two winds up with only 80 Units and will slowly starve to death, while Ten will have 100 Units, more than he needs to survive.  So, Two is in trouble and everyone else is okay.  To solve this problem, everyone could contribute one more Unit.  Then Two would have 89 Units, almost enough to survive.  He'd still starve to death, but not as quickly. Ten would have 99 Units, still more than he needs.  But Three through Nine would, like Two, only have 89 Units.  So, in this example, everyone but One, the totally destitute, and Ten, the fairly better off, will die.  One will just barely make it, while Ten will be fine, but the rest will die.

This doesn't seem to make sense.  Worse, it is not in compliance with the social contract.  Ten, who has an obligation to care for everyone else in his society, is not meeting his obligation, while Two through Nine have a right to be cared for, but that right is not being honored.

On the other hand, there is a straightforward way to follow the terms of the social contract to a tee in this example.  Instead of having everyone, including Two, who has barely enough, contribute to the care of One, who has nothing, Three through Nine could contribute 10 Units and Ten could contribute 20 Units.  Then, everyone would have 90 Units, everyone would survive, everyone would be cared for, and the terms of the social contract would be perfectly met.

Is this class warfare?  More to the point, when Three through Nine realize that if everyone contributes equally, they are going to all starve while Ten prospers, is it class warfare if one of them even suggests that they should, perhaps, discuss the possibility of Ten, who has more than he needs, contributing a little more so that everyone can survive?

Is it class warfare if those who have barely enough suggest that those who have more than enough ought to contribute more so that all can survive?  I don't think so.  I think it is merely the carrying out of the social contract.

But, let's make the example a little tougher.  Let us assume that One has nothing, Two has exactly 90 Units, Three through Nine have 100 units, and Ten, through entirely fair means, has 200 Units.  Clearly, if Three through Nine each contribute 10 units and Ten contributes 20 Units, there will be enough to care for One and make sure he survives.  But, then, Three through Nine, who start with more than they need, will barely make it by, while Ten will live in oppulence.

Is it class warfare if Three suggests that they all discuss whether it would make more sense for Three through Nine to contribute only 9 Units each, and ask Ten to contribute 29 instead of 20?  Ten would still have way more than he needs to survive, One and Two would have enough to get by, and Three through Nine would at least have a little extra, instead of barely getting by.  Ten would still be paying more than Three through Nine, and more than if he paid 20, but he'd still be a lot better off than everyone else.  Class warfare?  Class warfare even to suggest that the possibility of Ten paying a larger share even be discussed?  I don't think so.

Now, would it be class warfare if Three through Nine all forced Ten to pay 90 Units - everything that was needed to care for One, thus leaving Ten with only 120 Units while Three through Nine, who could pay something, paid nothing at all?  Yeah, it might be.  In that case, one economic class is clearly ganging up on another economic class and maybe that's class warfare.

Somewhere in between suggesting that the society discuss whether someone might pay more than their pro rata share and forcing someone to pay everything that is needed there is a line.  On one side of that line it is at least reasonable to have the discussion.  On the other side of that line folks are being unreasonable.  I can't tell you where that line is, but I can tell you that I don't think merely raising the idea of discussing whether a rich person ought to pay a little more so that the middle class can prosper, just a little, is class warfare.  That, on its face, is not unreasonable.

Yet, that is exactly what those who cry "class warfare" everytime someone suggests talking about raising taxes on the rich are claiming.  They are accusing someone who merely suggests a reasonable discussion of being unreasonable, of engaging in "class warfare."

I don't know where the right balance is.  Reasonable people will disagree on where the right balance is.  But, I am convinced that merely suggesting that we discuss whether we have the right balance now and where that right balance may be is not class warfare.

And those who claim it is are not being reasonable.