State of nature , justifing the State

even if it is not possible to justify the state with only consent, it is also hard to think that it is possible with out it .
''even kings realized that they would have to regulate their behavior according to law or potentially lose their heads.'' Paul Newall
so.. what brings the state of nature to state ?
I understand that human had to lose their natural freedom that they had in the state of nature, enable for them to create State,
instinct
even if we do believe that they where equal, we also have to admit that there was a certain role that gave some of them more advantages than others ( females , first share in a prey ...)
even lions and elephants behave ''instinctily '' that it is safer for the species to live in a group whether if the weakest like it or not,
The continuous historical movement for excellence
Nature has always been selective and has chosen the best of species, and that i believe take a place because of
transported experiences
So if a monkey realize that it is possible to get to the banana by putting 2 boxes on top of other ,then why couldn't human figure out that to eat a Mammoth they would have to kill it together? And thereby pass this knowledge to their children ?
Humans cant live in a society and not try to make it better ,one of the children of the farmer-or may be more- will notice that enable to have more sheep's he have to protect them by having a fence to keep them a way from dangerous animals..
even if we think that State is rational ,still we have to conceder that it is related to instinct, transported experiences,and the continuous historical movement for excellence
But how has it happened ?
''Fear of isolation ,sharing the benefits inside the group will make a state of nature- where right and power meant the same thing-a society'' Spinoza
But how long it toked? or for more specific information ...we should wate for biology to explain for us.

But what justified the state?
benefits , fear of punishment ,what choices humane have ,
before any individual or group think of fighting the Sovereign they have to recall all of what are above and that is rationality!
also i will suggest practical successthat and thos might well accompany human consent to justify the State.
Hobbes, Locke , Rousseau...
I think it is very interesting to see how much society can provide us with so many different opinions ,although we should notice that even through differences, humans can point to united subjects ( the idea of equalizations )
but if i have to choose one of them ..I'd choose Hobbes , even if Hobbes didn't give stat of nature hope to Develop to state , and though he also cant convince me what well gather human to create social contract .
But i think Hobbes made it to :understand 'body' or matter of which we are entirely composed more clearly .
The way i understand the above philosophers and anarchism theory leads me in one part of it , to the point that all of them seem to share ´´equality´´,which i think was finally ''recreated'' by the new wealthy educated Social layer (( Bourgeoisie)) which seeking equality, against Godly kings and lords.