Attacking Hobbes' account

Do I accept the premisses and problems?

1)

• Are we really selfish? It depends on the situation. We might trust each other in a life and death situation because we know it's the only effective way of staying alive. 
• We don't know how we would act because we haven't experienced it. 
• The Game Theory shows trust and selflessness in people. 

C: Our continued existence would be secure.

However:

• The Game Theory doesn't apply because the players aren't in a SoN so  won't act like they would in a life and death situation.  

But! 

Although it would be easier to trust no one, we need socialisation to be sane because we are social animals.

C: Continued existence would be secure because we wouldn't kill, there would be no one to socialise with and no sense of living if so.

2) 

• Would there be morals? Would it be that "Anything goes"? Some people may have morals and would choose to not kill.
• It depends on whether we were born in or just changed to a SoN and Hobbes hasn't focused on this.

3) 

• Even the strongest person can be killed by a lower sneaky person.
• The Fight for Glory may not protect you after all.
• Some do not want ultimate power.

4)

• Some may decide to assign jobs and have long-term projects to have food, maybe form a state.
• After all, this is what Britain and the whole world has done! Converted into a state.

I disagree with all of the premisses and problems. I don't think he has looked clearly enough at how people would act in the SoN. 

Is the conclusion right?
Solitary? - Humans are social animals and we naturally need socialisation and a sense of belonging.
No cooperation? - We formed a state.
Rousseau - No one has experienced the SoN. Hobbes: Countries with no government. (Somalia).