If I say 'neither', will I get called out for being roadkill? I'm more 'nurture' than 'nature' on what on a man is.

People generally pursue their own interests. Their interests include the welfare of others, and their own feelings wrt empathy and the like, not just traditionally 'selfish' interests. The purpose of government is to restrict that pursuit. Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad. Almost always it's contentious. As a non-anarchist, I feel very strongly that the restriction of that pursuit is especially historically, but still also contemporarily, a net good from a utilitarian and virtue ethics standpoint.

Without a means of imposing conflict resolution on parties which will not compromise to a satisfactory degree with one another, conflict intensifies and escalates. It's exactly this 'ungoverned' condition which leads to the rise of 'honor societies' wherein offenses must be met with irrational escalation, because rational escalation is, ironically, irrational in the face of an inability to guarantee retaliatory capacity.

No government thus makes men worse than their natures, I believe, precisely because we are rational and social animals. The rise of state societies is simply the rules-oriented application of tribal/familial governance to populations where unrelated individuals cannot avoid interacting. When a social unit exceeds the amount in which stable groups of related elders have enough influence to create consensus, strict tribal/familial governance is no longer possible.

Bad government also makes men worse than their natures. The worst governments, arguably, can be worse than even the most chaotic absence of governance, because it has much more room to 'cultivate' specific flaws, like servility or bigotry.

The issue is that everyone has power over others. A man who farms has power over a man who doesn't. A charismatic extrovert has power over the friendless introvert. A man who knows a secret has power over a man who is unaware.

And that to assert that no one should have any power over others, ironically, strips one of the ability to ensure that no one has power over others. Even anarchist polities require people to be able to enforce rules on others; the institutional structures are simply weakened to create fluidity of power and, ideally, thus prevent its abuse.

All systems are compromises between constructing something with the power to achieve its goals (such as preventing the rise of traditional states, for example) and restraining it's own capabilities to prevent it from turning into something else (... like a traditional state. For example.)