An argument that shows how anarchy does not contradict the laws of human natur

[Gritz Hill]

Hi, this is just something my friend said that made me think. I don't 100% beilive this but it does make some sense:

Would *the concept of one official leader ever exist if the laws of human nature advocated cooperation within the group as opposed to one physically stronger *leader leading the group? *After the last stage of human evolution how would humans create the concept of a *hierarchical * government if no human ever experienced a hierarch leader?*
In the nature of animals, *for example horses, *function under a leader that is physically stronger then the rest of the horses. If the leading horse becomes old, sick or in general is weak, it would lose power and the next strongest horse would be the leader. There is absolutely *no example of this in civilized human history. *So the concept of what system would be in place that would establish law and order in a society if humans naturally worked cooperatively would hand been direct democracy, mutual aid, conscious decision *making or a leader that is a slave to the people( for example the goal of a socialist democracy)

[tuwix]

First of all, your friend is mixing world self-conscious beings (humans) and other animals.
Secondly, not all animals are in hierarchical structure. For example, home cats are independent and don't need any leader.
Thirdly, there were examples in history where people worked on cooperacy denying hierachical systems.

[Sotionov]

As to anarchy being in accordance with the human nature or not, it's explained here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't understand your question with the *'s, bit incoherent so I'm not sure what you're trying to say, though maybe it's me, not entirely sober and clear right now. If you're wondering about a reply to the argument that egalitarianism is against human nature, I usually point out that hunter-gatherers found egalitarianism to be better suited than hierarchy as explained here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081003122549.htm

We've been hunter-gatherers for 99.8% of human existence, so egalitarianism surpasses hierarchy for a couple of years.

I also point out that the Landless Workers' Movement has an egalitarian grassroots decision-making structure with 1,500,000 participants and members since 1985 (which shows egalitarianism is feasible on a large scale and for prolonged periods of time with a real life example). (You could also point to the Zapatistas).

[Skyhilist]

Human nature is only whatever the surrounding conditions dictate it will be.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Your friend is right in the (trivial) sense that if it was against human nature for a person to want to be a leader, and against human nature for a person to want to be led, then it would be reasonable to assume that hierarchical societies would not emerge (or if they did emerge, would not last). Yet they exist and are plentiful.

But the point is that human nature is not monolithic. Humans are capable of both selfishness and cooperation, capable of both fighting among each other and of living in mutual aid. Hierarchy isn't against human nature, but it is only one small aspect of human nature, counteracted by other aspects.

Thus we should be capable of living in both competitive and individualistic societies, as well as in solidaristic and communal societies. And ultimately it is the society we live in that governs which aspects of our human nature flourish and which ones take a back seat.