In my thread about the supposed profitability of the state I realized two things 1) thanks to Smiling Dave, that state didn't logically have to come from anarchy and 2) that it might've come from anarchy is merely a probable assumption.
So if humanity was born into a state then we already have our question solved before we begin yet that poses the question of how man was born into a state which is a question that penetrates to such a fundamental depth that it seems to go beyond the realms of political science and into the areas of religion or biology.
But if political science does have something to say about the rise of the state it is this thesis: Namely that the state arose because it was profitable to most people.
But we know that the state isn't profitable to most people -concentration camps, business cycles, etc.
But I argue that in relation to how things were in the past before the state, the creation of the state was a necessary move towards civilization.
Now in the past anarchy existed. However it was a materially different anarcho-"capitalism". This primitive anarcho-capitalism was possible because it is possible, I think, for things other than money to be an incentive. Honor then could be an incentive. And so honor can have its own regression theorem and what not. If this is true than a society based on honor and reputation could very well have lead to a state since we see that fighting and violence is supposed to be a mark of honor and earns the esteem of people. But societies that don't need to rely on economic calculation are few and these few seem to be families. But we see that ancient societies were basically kinship networks and tribes so this is more inductive evidence that perhaps statism was equal to anarcho-capitalism at a time.
As history progresses though we see something interesting. The state becomes more and more differentiated from society as a society advances in wealth. This means that the society of the tribe, where everything is considered public and part of the state transitions into the nation state where a good deal of things are private and the state is seen as something set apart and over the society. In this lies the profitability of creating states. The state is profitable precisely because it becomes, with each new incarnation, less cognizant of the society it controls and when it does try to increase it's influence it fails (soviet russia) setting the stage for freer societies and smaller states. So the ability to differentiate between states and societies is what makes creating a state so profitable because then there is actually a criteria by which one can know the robber from what he robs. And indeed, the more differentiated a state is from society the more that society advances therefore the state in a way, is socially profitable.