A Paradox for Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes, a political philosopher (that is all you need to know of him for this entry), believed humans were naturally evil, but their nature of wickedness led them to establish the institution of the state (which itself has adopted as its nature what it hoped to protect, but that is a paradox for anarchistic position). If humans are, so called, naturally "evil", but establish the state as protection, does it not logically follow that it is in their nature to establish "good" (as it seems Hobbes implies government as a counter-balance to evil in posing a contrast to an evil nature) institution to protect from evil as if they were generally evil, why establish a protection that limits themselves? If they were evil, they would radiate such wickedness and not establish something that excludes their desires. Rather, humans naturally have good natures and establish government not so much as protection from what they desire and may present harm from others, but to uphold their virtues from the evil outliers. If state is established as a general aspect of human nature, I would see it appropriate to say that humans are at least just as good as they are evil, rather than one factor generally dominate them, or that a factor of good persists in the evil to a notable degree (but it still requires a limitation of the attainment of desires). One may very well contest the state more so a protection from other evils so that the evil man may better holdhis life. Limiting his own actions for the sake of livelihood. If we accept this outcome, one may suppose as a possibility as well that if the state's purpose is to protect a certain amount of wickedness (protecting a wicked man so he may still utlize some of his wicked desires as that is why he wishes to maintain his life [living to simply live is wanted due to experiences desired to be fulfilled] and nothing is absolute, whereby his evil desires are not completely nullified simply in self-preservation) is wicked in and of itself, thereby making the state, due to its very purpose, an evil entity, and rather than reject wickedness, it only maintains it in its own degree, and is empowered with wicked acts it deems too wicked to deal with wickedness (acquisition and dominance through force), becoming hypocritical, and facilitating wickedness. One may very well say individuals exchange desires to those of virtuous desires so that they may live under protection. This provides a fallacious view of nature whereby they exchange the foundations of their nature for another so they may live under protection, a very temporal definition of nature. Rather, if good desires were had under government that they naturally erect, it may be viewed as yet further support to humans being of natural good, but holding wicked outliers.