An Anthropological Case for Limited Constitutional Government: Part One

People hold a wide range of beliefs concerning human nature, and these different beliefs impact how they view the role of government and the proper prerequisites for society. These beliefs are often left as an unspoken assumption that leads groups to differ in their political beliefs. This article will be an examination of how a free market versus a socialist system would fare if two extremely different assumptions about human nature were true. This analysis will primarily be done through assessing the performance of a private property-based limited government system against a socialized system in societies where most people are strictly self-interested, or strictly altruistic.

In a world where most people can be assumed to be extremely self-interested and untrustworthy, a system of rigid protection of private property and rights holds the edge over a socialist system. In this simplified hypothetical, individuals will only act to increase their own financial gain, and government officials will only act to increase their financial gain. Individuals have two ways to increase their financial welfare: expending energy in the political sphere to increase money from the government or expending energy in “the market” to increase money from “the market.” Government officials seek to increase their financial gain by balancing the positive financial gain of government spending (this spending increases their financial gain by increasing popularity and thus opportunities for gain, along with a salary increase tied to government spending) with the negative financial gain of taking money from the people (this results from their decreased chance of reelection if they tax higher). Each official tries to maximize government spending while minimizing taxation. 

The Libertarian government restrictions in this model are unchangeable laws that prohibit:…