Subscribe now

On the contrary, libertarians don’t assume people are good at all. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The libertarian takes this even further by saying that it is precisely because humans are not angels that a government founded on aggression should not exist. Humanity cannot be trusted with the reins of power as such, even if it is purportedly given “checks and balances.”

Madison believed a state must first be “enable[d] to control the governed,” and then “oblige it to control itself.” But how is this to occur but for the same non-angelic people that we said could not govern themselves to begin with? The libertarian suggests that institutionalizing aggression in government is nonsensical because humanity is not inherently good enough to hold that power without corruption. No coercive government can be structurally set up to get around this; such is the nature of aggression and power.

This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, launching June 2026 in paperback, PDF, and Kindle. Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.

Subscribe now

Libertarians don’t promote libertinism (the total disregard of any form of authority or social convention); we’re just about promoting liberty.

Libertarianism is not a full moral or aesthetic theory, but only a political theory, which is a subset of moral theory dealing with the proper role of violence in public life. Libertarianism suggests what the proper role of civil government is and how it should behave (if at all), since it claims for itself the power to coerce others with physical force. Ultimately, libertarians say that everyone should be free to do as they will so long as they do not initiate aggression against others. That may make it possible for people to live as a certain kind of hedonist (again, so long as they don’t commit aggression), but libertarianism doesn’t make a claim about every activity surrounding human life, much less condone hedonism.

With liberty, though, one is free to act upon their deeply held moral principles without fear of violent reprisal, and that includes the religious freedom that Christians have sought since the beginning of our shared faith.

This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, launching June 2026 in paperback, PDF, and Kindle. Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.

Subscribe now

Certainly some libertarians are greedy and selfish—just like some political conservatives and progressives. But there is nothing about libertarian political theory that lauds such behaviors as good and right. On the contrary, libertarianism suggests that the nature of the aggressive political process is to attract those corrupt individuals who are indeed greedy and selfish to positions of power, where instead of having to satisfy others’ needs to gain anything (as in the marketplace), they can use that power to steal what they want from others. While the marketplace rewards those who serve the needs of others through mutual exchange, politics incentivizes direct greed with its very structure.

However, you might also have heard of the “virtue of selfishness” as explained by Ayn Rand, whom many libertarians respect. Some of Rand’s teachings are antithetical to Christian values, but it’s notable that Rand’s use of such language is meant to combat the oft-proclaimed mantra that the state is inherently altruistic and is “better” than the marketplace where everyone is always and only “greedy.” Instead, Rand says that it is good to aspire, to achieve, to create, to act in one’s self-interest. As Christians, we even believe it is in our own self-interest to seek after God because it is the end of man to glorify God and enjoy him forever! So, self-interest in the right perspective is a good thing (see Question 19).