But if you can imagine yourself in a system where the only alternative to honest, genuine, sincere agreement with all adversaries would be to endure coercive arbitration by uncontrollable arbiters, then the many good ideas that you might have had from time to time might seem much more realistic. Instead of having to enter politics as a power-struggler, all you would have to do is show the value of your ideas to people who are in the same boat as you seeking true agreement in order to avoid uncontrollable arbitration. And you would most likely be much more willing to consider the ideas of other people. In summary, the existence of controllable positions of power and manipulatable procedures for the use of coercion, motivate people to oppose each other in power struggles. No matter how benevolent a power-struggler might be, any participation in the power struggle further fuels it.
Power struggles counter our natural motive to cooperate.
As the power struggle escalates, the stakes get higher, and people sacrifice more of their natural scruples. Honesty becomes a handicap in the power struggle, and almost everyone gets drawn into it, knowingly or unknowingly, in varying degrees. The solution is to build an agreement to remove all controllability and manipulability from the option to coerce, thereby allowing natural government our natural need to quickly agree with all adversaries to take over and motivate all cooperation. This can be done by establishing the option for anyone to call for coercive arbitration for any reason, and then selecting the arbiters completely at random and refraining from trying to counterfeit our natural limits on the authority of the randomly selected arbiters. Being completely uncontrollable, the option to call for random arbitration would be useless except in obvious self-defense.