Why do libertarians seem to think all people are good and don’t need a state to control them?
Question 23 in Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded
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.
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.