Political Philosophy and State of Nature

One of the fundamental debates of Modern Political Philosophy is: Humankind is by nature in a condition of universal war, e. g. Hobbes, vs. Humankind is by nature in a condition of universal peace, e. g. Rousseau.  Correspondingly, therefore, is a debate over the basic function of Political Philosophy--to neutralize universal war vs. to undo the artificial impediments to universal peace.  Now, one criticism of the terms of the debate is that there is no such 'state of nature', from which it follows that Political Philosophy is a groundless enterprise.  Still, by re-conceiving the 'state of nature' as heuristic, the enterprise can recover at least some justification.  However, even granted that modification, the two positions share an arbitrary presupposition--both a state of war and a state of peace are structures.  In contrast to both is the premise, whether constitutive or heuristic, that Humankind is formless, from which it follows that the basic function of Political Philosophy is to introduce organization into it, with the debate over the best type of organization independent of any supposition of a 'state of nature'.