This is an interesting debate, and one that I feel is missing a key component. In general, we expect experts in a field to be knowledgeable, but even then, an expert's opinion is only more valid than a layman's because of specialized knowledge or experience; either learned from another expert, or observed directly.

If a so called "expert" made an assertion without presenting citation or evidence, I think it's perfectly reasonable to challenge that assertion. If a layman made an assertion and did provide evidence, I would consider that compelling enough to at least speak to an expert about it.

I would argue that there is a difference in the way we behave versus "nature" in the sense that human beings reject things that are beneficial or even critical to their survival, in the pursuit of less concrete aims.

Your example of the beehive got me thinking about that film with Jerry Seinfeld, The Bee Movie. The plot of the film anthropomorphizes the human ideal of freedom of choice on a worker bee. From a natural perspective, this makes no sense. Worker bees simply do not question their nature. However, the idea of being born to simply perform a task until we die sits poorly on the human mind.

I think the author would make the argument that all of the dominants he listed have as a feature the threat of physical coercion. Granted, it doesn't include the bully down the street who wants your lunch money, but you could make the argument that the bully is on some level, a monarch. He rules his sidewalk with an iron fist, and only a bigger force will depose him.

I won't say the list is perfect, but I do think it goes beyond simply listing modern authorities.

It's been said already that anarchism is not an end, rather a process by which we make what we have better.

Anarchy as a system will never be a thing institutionally, as that is contrary to the very nature of anarchy. The author points this out, that anarchy isn't organized in the traditional sense, but rather organically. I think he actually illustrates this well by using examples of friendship. People don't generally take well to a forced friendship; they would rather happen upon it organically--if it happens, it happens. Anarchy supposes this as a universal good. If life can thrive organically without a dominant, that life is better for it.

I don't think anyone could successfully argue that anarchy in its purest form, without any dominant, is possible. Rather, how can we remove the most pervasive dominants that we no longer require to thrive?