Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

I will write this as an open letter; because we are friends, and because your article needs a reply. First, a contract is a recorded agreement between parties who are named signatories. The so called social contract is an implied agreement between those who produce, and those who consume. There are already agreements in place between such parties. Those who produce naturally must be able to control the resources necessary for production, such as raw materials, machinery, land, transportation, and, most importantly labor. It seems you have a problem with that. Those who consume must have access to the means of consumption, such as currency, or trade. This comes about as a condition of participation in production which I like to call employment. Without currency or trade, what entitles a person to product? If you cannot, or more importantly, will not contribute to production you are in the way of production. Without production, society stops. If one follows Rousseau’s ideology to its conclusion, mankind is presented with one of two choices: First, one may revert to nature; that was actually the solution Rousseau preferred. As I recall, Voltaire responded that the Social Contract made him wish he could drop to all fours and cavort about in a more natural state. I must say, I feel no such compulsion. The second possibility is to acknowledge that the resources of our world are shared resources belonging more or less equally to all persons alive and yet to be born. Where art thou Brother Theo? That, my longtime friend, is a liberal idea. To implement such an idea would be to cancel out the underpinnings of capitalism. Why, to simply allow such an idea to ascend would strip away everything that has made America great! You think might does not make right? Take another look at our military my friend. Ask the Israelis if might does not make right; Mighty Rome vaporized Judea, and by God, Mighty America restored it. Rightfully or not, all parties abided by those outcomes. What is “right” anyway? Jesus said, “render up unto Caesar that which is Caesar's”. That's just a different way of saying “it is what it is”. 
Now, Theo, we have been friends practically forever, but we do disagree on some subjects. You like Irish whiskey and Scotch, I like bourbon and martinis. You like your women smart, and I just like women, but on this idea, well, I would agree with you, but you're wrong.
Let me put it this way. America has a social contract; it’s called the constitution. Some of my ancestors died to make that possible too. As far as I can see the constitution is inviolate, so there can be no so called “trajectory” to it. The kind of thinking underlying your article has led this nation into political and economic chaos. Let me give you one little example: In the greatest power plays of their days, President Lincoln used war to end slavery, and President Johnson used the specter of the dissolution of democracy to end the right of the south to govern their states as they saw fit. Both used might to bring about what they thought was right. Were they right? In both cases, they were wrong! Slavery and Jim Crow would have both collapsed on their own, because both were spectacularly unsustainable. Instead, the civil war endures. The confederate flag flies above as many buildings as does the American flag. Southern men and women belong to a different culture than th e rest of the country, making any election a toss up. Without a doubt the end of slavery by the sword led to Jim Crow.  Sixty  percent of those imprisoned in America today are black, and the rate of imprisonment for blacks has rise seven hundred percent since 1970. That's faster than the crime rate itself has risen! That phenomenon also coincides roughly with the passage of the civil rights act and voting rights act. 
As I said, this is an open letter. So, where art thou o Brother? Your thoughts?