God had rules and he enforced them. Did God not know man would eat from the tree?
Man has dominion over animals. Is this your argument? That animals are equal to man? Man may rightly eat animal, animal may not rightly eat man. The Gospel of Thomas records the sayings of Jesus. The seventh says: "Blessed is the lion which man eats so that the lion becomes man. But cursed is the man whom lion eats so the man becomes lion." This applies both literally and figuratively.
Regarding the natural state of man, look at two men raised by wolves hundreds of miles apart. They are each completely free. They are each superior to animals. Their liberty is unobstructed, their actions boundless. God's grant of free will is limitless as far as each is concerned. Until the day one meets the other. On that day, one man's right to act freely becomes slightly limited by the other's presence. Previously, one could swing his fists anywhere he pleased, but today, neither may (rightly) hit the other. This is the limit on God's grant of freedom and the limit(s) presupposed by the founders. That each man be as free as possible, without infringing on other's equal rights to be free. The goal of government is therefore, to protect each man's individual equal rights to the maximum extent possible.
That does not include taking from one to give to the other. It does not include Obamacare, seat-belts, motorcycle helmets, forced socialized retirements, etc.. It does not include majoritarianism, where the group strips the individual of his rights. Rights are not communal, they are not additive. Two men's rights do not outweigh another individual man's rights. The individual reigns supreme above organizations of men. These are the lessons of our founders, derived from God's grant of free-will.
No individual can show that they have any right to impose their will on any other individual.
That's the only indisputable, objective fact which can serve as a foundation for political philosophies. (Frankly even that's potentially dubious in some cases; to what extent do parents have a 'right' to impose their will on their children?) Appeals to divine right historically and still presently serve as the justification for monarchies, theocracies and all kinds of oppression and prejudice. I'd stay away from them on principle. But more importantly, as OC has been highlighting for you, no-one can
show that their 'divine right' is real or true - so no-one else has any particular reason to accept it.
If no individual has any right to impose their will on other adults, then an objective political philosophy must acknowledge that as a general rule,
all people have equal rights - both under the laws and regulations of a society (whatever they may be), and to a say in the formation of those laws and regulations.
I agree with you that freedom is our natural state, but that's not the same thing as a 'right' (let alone an inalienable one!), anymore than wandering around naked, or the patriarch or alpha male's role is a 'right.'
Rights are entitlements, which means there has to be other/s with regard to whom one is entitled. Freedom becomes a right because (in many/most developed democracies) we have collectively agreed to
make it a right, a default entitlement which holds true unless some collectively agreed-upon law or regulation restricts it.
For example, we (in many/most developed democracies) have collectively agreed for example that driving a car, building a skyscraper or opening a food service business are
not universal freedoms. We require people intending to do those things to seek permission, in the form of licensing, to do so because we deem their possible impacts on others sufficient to warrant it. An alternative society is readily imaginable, one in which the people have collectively agreed that members must seek approval even for their choice of education, job, home or partnership. There are undoubtedly circumstances in which a more restricted society is even
beneficial. For example, since you're a biblical fellow, the Israelites' enforced homogeneity and intra-marriage promoted unity and a cultural identity which has survived for thousands of years.
As long as everyone has their right to a say in the structuring of that society, and the freedom to leave if they don't like it, what rational objection could there be against such a decision?
Much as you or I prefer a more open, freer society, what gives either of us the right to dictate what another group of people should or should not collectively decide?
