Human nature does not make libertarian socialism impossible to work in practice

Clarification. Relation of MAB and RA to the resolution.The point of the contentions of MAB and RA as being large parts of human nature serves two points. (A) It shows the social and economic arrangements in society need not be set up competitively, and (B) it shows that human nature is not antithetical to the concept of the implementation of a society built on the principles of cooperation and mutual aid. Obviously if those characteristics are a large part of human nature then a society built on them can be shown to be conductive to human flourishing. To make the point more clear, let us look at the principles that go into the concept of a libertarian socialist society. As per the definition I provided in R1, it is characterized by equal ownership and power concerning the means of production, need taken into account in production as opposed to self interested profit, and mutual aid as a primary mechanism for running society obviously. The primary difference between a libertarian socialist society and a liberal capitalist one is the idea that production is guided by the needs of the community specifically, as opposed to being guided by the general self interest of producers. This is where our altruistic impulses ingrained by human nature become important.A common criticism of the possibility of such a society is that people are by their nature self interested, thus an economy based on need and use could not work as we are naturally egoistic. We naturally want to profit off of others and so a society based on anything else would not be successful for very long. But the principles inherent in human nature such as MAB and RA clearly make this criticism dubious and is the main point my case makes, that society can be run on these natural characteristics in us and that self interest is not imperative in organizing society. Our natural inclination to help those around us is descriptively captured by evolutionary concepts like MAB and RA and are implemented through mechanisms like for-use production and lack of a need for coercive hierarchical authority.Contention. Existence of Scarcity.On my opponent's point of scarcity, I accept that it exists certainly. The whole reason why economic planning becomes necessary is because we do not have unlimited resources in the world. Even the mechanism by which we use these limited resources i.e. our bodies is limited. However, as I will show, this point of my opponent's does not favor any specific system of economic organization, just some form of economic organization at all.Contention. Scarcity and Competition.While the existence of scarcity in the world is something that cannot be rationally denied, I deny my opponent's assertion that need for allocating scarce resources necessarily entails something in opposition to a socialist organization for society. Consider that different economic arrangements in society are merely different ways of allocating scarce resources. Competition is one way out of many to do this but not the only possible way and considering my evolutionary evidence provided in R2, a socialist organization of the economy would be more conductive to human nature, as is the general focus of the debate at hand. All that the existence of scarce resources proves is that there is a need to rationally allocate things like food and water. It doesn't mean that it must be allocated in a competitive way which is just one manner out of many and my opponent has not shown why competition is more conductive to human nature.Contention. Competition and Libertarian Socialism.My opponent begins by the observation that war is generally rooted in competition for scarce resources. He thus argues from this point that in a libertarian socialist world of many smaller communal societies, they would end up simply devolving and competing with each economically or physically as competition for resources is ingrained into human nature. Let me point out that my opponent has failed to provide any scientific or philosophic sources proving his unwarranted assertion that we are doomed to competitive conflict, nor has he attempted to refute my own arguments for why human nature is characterized by the opposite tendencies. My opponent is merely making assertions whereas I in my case have drawn on documented findings into the general characteristics universal to humanity.Moreover it could be just as easily argued (and would be more substantiated given my actual sourcing of my claims) that the existence of warring for scarce resources was not due to human nature, but is instead due to the social conditioning of a societal system based around economic competition between self interested actors. My opponent has certainly not refuted my reasoning that MAB and RA are rooted in human nature and thus his assertion of competition as seemingly just as just as strong as these tendencies would be contradictory. It is my contention that in a society where economic, personal, and public arrangements are based on real human nature, we would get past the social conditioning of competition and the human nature that I have shown to exist would takeover as primary motivation for the way we behave.