How would you define a “social contract” that doesn’t involve individuals, in some manner, agreeing not to go vigilante when wronged by another in favor of a third party representative of the law to adjudicate the event? Are you saying that there is no social contract wherein natural law rights are not sublimated to prevent anarchy? Are not powers dependent upon rights? I think we are on the same page but arguing semantics.
Peace.
The natural right of self defense is applicable in the face of a deadly threat. "Social contract" is an implementation of righting the wrong. (e.g. you stole my stuff, I go to court to get it back rather than come over to your house to get it). I still have the right to the property, but the issue is how I get it back.
It my sister gets kidnapped, serially raped by a gang of murderous cretans, I may go after her myself and kill every bastard involved in the crime who will probably resent me exerting my familial right to regain and protect my sister. So bit it.
The proper function of law is to protect those rights.