Does the lack of a creator god undermine social contract theory?

The social contract theory states that the citizens of a state give up their natural rights to freedom from the state (who has a license to use force on its citizens) in exchange for a guarantee of security and protection from harm. Essentially the citizens trade in their freedom from force for protection from force. The social contract consists of social contract theory, which posits that the citizens surrendered certain rights to freedom in exchange for protection of the state. It is based upon both the citizens and the state upholding their end of the agreement, the citizens by obeying the laws and the state by protecting the citizens from harm. (In the US, this would be the police force and courts≈)<br><br>For instance, the citizens give up their right to steal, which allows the state to punish those that do steal. In exchange, the state shall protect its citizens from those that would steal from them.<br><br>The citizens give up their right to murder, which allows the state to punish those that do murder. In exchange, the state shall protect its citizens from those that would murder them.<br><br>I think it’s easy to see how the social contract theory is still in play today. Sciences≈ have shown time and time again that the social contract theory shall govern how a functional society shall run.<br><br>The thing that you may not know about the social contract theory is that one of the earliest proponents of the social contract theory was Jean-Jacques Rousseau.<br><br>Obviously, Rousseau was far from the only proponent for the social contract theory, but he was one of the earliest proponents. <br><br>And if you haven’t read the Wikipedia article on Rousseau by now, you would know that he believed that humans were born inherently innocent and good. <br><br>But the problem he faced was Adam and Eve. They, in his eyes, were not inherently innocent and good. They were inherently innocent and bad. Adam and Eve were the first humans to ever sin, and the original sin that Adam and Eve committed was the sin that caused all of humanity to become inherently wicked.<br><br>Now, shall we assume that god does not exist? This basically invalidates the entire Adam and Eve story. <br><br>Now we can say that humans can be inherently innocent and good. <br><br>If humans are inherently innocent and good, then humans would have to be inherently deserving of their natural rights to freedom. <br><br>If humans are inherently deserving of their natural rights to freedom, then the humans do not have to give up their rights to freedom in exchange for protection from the state. <br><br>In other words, if humans are inherently innocent and good, then they do not need the state to protect them from harm. They shall never cause harm.<br><br>But the citizens of a state shall cause harm, obviously. Humans do commit crimes.<br><br>But if you believe in the social contract theory, shall humans be inherently innocent and good?<br><br>The fact that humans are not inherently innocent and good undermines the legitimacy of the social contract theory. If humans are not inherently innocent and good, then they must give up their natural rights to freedom in exchange for protection from the state. This is the only way that humans can be guaranteed security and safety from harm.