S=L^n

Homo Homini Lupus Est, Hobbes said that in a state of natural evolution a natural man (forgive me for being redundant) would be a wolf to man , meaning, if men want the same things, and we do, after all we are ambitious by nature, then we seek to destroy our neighbor to get what we want. Hobbes' concept of State is the passing of man's reactive imperium into the hands of an entity belonging to a community, and so the a fore mentioned man integrates into said community. But, who ends up with the power the others surrender to the State? Who is, what is this State? Simple, it depends on whether you inhabit a monarchy, aristocracy, parliamentary democracy, direct democracy, representative democracy or some other "form of State"; however all these are conformed of men, lupus, men who, no matter how educated are always, in nature, going to be Wolves. So the "common man" has given in his reactive power (self defense) to be accepted into the society or community at hand, and it has been transfered to "the State" ( becomes State defense), then the State is a Wolf with the "legitimate"  power (because technically the common man has accepted the State) of as many wolves as are now "civilized men" (dispossessed of the lupine power) under him.
S=L^n

Now, following this train of thought, it would be better if a Civilized man were the state, but what makes a man a wolf is power. So this much isn't possible.

And as Cicero said so eloquently "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” So does that mean that if a man desires to live in society and is thus obligated to surrender his freedom in order to partake of the social contract,  he does not deserve this freedom? The vicious defenders of all things "Human Rights" would probably say "of course not, that's barbaric, prehistoric, archaic". The problem with that is the imprecise definition of what are Human Rights, and how they are gained, although the theory states clearly that HRs are all rights that are inherent and natural to man, gained only by the condition of being human, to which no one can renounce, reject, sell, and so on and so forth; when questioned what defines the extent of these the answer is simply, "a persons rights reach out indefinitely and are only limited when they invade some other persons rights". However, as is natural to all limits that enter in conflict (and limits are always in conflict, from tectonic plates to principles.), one will always in a certain way or moment prevail over the other. Now in legality the answer is to ponder among these rights to see according to the situation which prevails, but pondering is always, no matter how legal, subject to the personal formation of the judge in question.