My argument of "not everyone is born a leader..." is what? Where did I make that argument?

It's not a disease, it's just a fact. I'll invite you to look up the meaning of disease.

Everyone follows someone, including you. As autonomous as you'd like to claim you are, there are people in your life who influence you, who you admire, who you emulate in some fashion or another. It may be that your work includes following someone, whether you like it or not.

Anarchy is no rulers, not no leaders. I wouldn't be so fast to poopoo anarchistic arguments. There might be some cognitive dissonance there, but maybe not. There can be a massive difference between leading and ruling. In any group of people, someone (or a few) rises to some form of prominence. It can be very casual or it can be quite clear. But it always exists. That's not bad, it just is a fact.

Another provocative argument. You seem to have developed a structure that is novel and stands alone. Or did you borrow it from elsewhere? Maybe others embrace it, but it seems to defy what is natural about humans as a race, and certainly defies common social construct. That doesn't mean it's wrong. But attempting to give it a moral compass at all is more than a challenge. As with leadership existing, your philosophy on this is amoral - it merely exists.