It was generally assumed that it was violent, and that this was why people in the state of nature decided to form government - to secure the unalienable rights. Thomas Hobbes argued that the state of nature was a perpetual state of war of all against all.
But other philosophers during the enlightenment period scoffed at that idea - they saw little evidence that a state of nature every really existed.
An evolutionary biologist challenges the idea that there was ever any proof that ancient people were actually that violent. The assumption that they were has clouded how evidence has been evaluated. Yes we can be violent, but we can be compassionate as well.
When it comes to human aggression, violence and war, there simply is no unitary direction impelled by evolution. On the one hand, we are capable of despicable acts of horrific violence; on the other, we evince remarkable compassion and self-abnegation. Our selfish genes can generate a wide array of nasty, destructive and unpleasant actions; and yet, these same selfish genes can incline us toward altruistic acts of extraordinary selflessness. It is at least possible that our remarkably rapid brain evolution has been driven by the pay-off derived by successful warlike competition with other primitive human and humanoid groups. But it is equally possible that it was driven by the pay-off associated with co-operation, co‑ordination and mutual care-taking.
Perhaps we need to rethink why government evolve and what purposes they serve.
