The paper presents the theories of three social contract philosophers related to the discussion of the (pre-political) state of nature and conceptions of the founding of the state of a particular philosopher. In the first place, the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are presented, as significant philosophers who acted during the 17th century, in times of English civil wars. In addition to them, the socio-contractual template of J. J. Rousseau, a philosopher who in turn acted in the 18th century, and whose works also influenced the later development of the French Revolution, will be presented. Hobbes' philosophy was among the first to portray the state of nature as the war of every man against every other, which, as it will be shown in the paper, actually reflected the society of his time. Locke's theory of the state of nature is conceived in such a way that in it first ruled freedom and equality, and people were protected by natural law. The right to punish, which according to Locke is possessed by every man in his state of nature, first led to conflict between people, which finally turned into intolerance. Rousseau, without accepting Hobbes and Locke's view of the state of nature, puts forward his own theory that man lives and works independently and that is why he is happy because he does not come into conflict with other people. Conflict and war between people breaks out when natural man transitions to a sedentary lifestyle and is forced to be in contact with people, which causes jealousy and envy among them. For all the troubles that have befallen people in their state of nature, all three philosophers offer as a solution the establishment of a state that, through civil laws, will take care of the safety and property of its subjects.