Ideally, a healthy social contract benefits all involved parties and doesn't sacrifice some particular subgroup so that everyone else can be happy, but they're screwed no matter what they do because all options open to them are horrible.
Most options are poor options, through little fault of the individual. You’re doing the best you can with the hand you’ve been dealt.
When 1+1=3 and you divide the pie such that everyone gets more than they would have on their own, no, it's not all downside and it's not unhealthy.
It's all downside when 1+1=3, but one party consistently gets less than what they would have on their own. Then, why should they go along with this?
That's where you get bitter people.
Edit: For the record, you've done a lot of editing of both of your comments here, which potentially changes how my replies look. I did my best to not personally accuse you of anything and to only state that the way the comment was written was not coming across well.
Your comments stand on their own, and it has been pointed out I have made edits (which I’ve attempted to make in good faith).
They would not be in loose loose "we blame you for not choosing this and then blame you for consequences of choosing this" situation.