Rejection of Libertarian Due to (Alleged) Inability of Private Citizens to Govern Themselves

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."--Ludwig von Mises

Indeed, I've often remarked that if you one doesn't trust libertarianism and capitalism because one does not trust human nature and does not optimistically believe that men will act virtuously, then why, pray tell, I will ask, does one trust the government, which, after all, is composed of men as well? If men are virtuous, then they don't need government. If they are evil and sinful, then the government will be as evil and sinful as the governed, and you may as well have evil liberty rather than evil tyranny. That is, if you are going to have evil anyway, either which way, then at least choose evil compounded with liberty and freedom rather than with tyranny and absolutism. One bad thing (evil) combined with a good thing (liberty), is better than two bad things combined (evil and tyranny).

This is all the more so, given that the first rule of medicine is, do no harm. If the government won't be able to restrain human evil, then it's better to simply leave things in their default state of nature. The default is liberty, and matters should stay there, unless you can improve them. Sinful men living in liberty is thus superior to sinful men living in tyranny. If men will do evil either way, we may as well at least give them liberty.

Alternatively, let us follow the Reformed Christian/Puritan and colonial American model. That model was to have a separation of powers not only horizontally, within the government, but also vertically, between the governed and the government. Man is sinful, and therefore needs a government to check him, but then again, the men manning the government are also sinful men, and need the lay citizens to check them. So give the government enough power to thwart evil by individual citizens, but give the citizens enough power to thwart evil by the government. Hopefully, the result will be a government that protects life, liberty, and property and punishes any who would trespass thereon, but that is limited by the citizens and thwarted the moment it tries to do anything beyond this.

As the Talmudic sages said, "Pray for the welfare of the government, for without it, man would swallow his neighbor alive." But of course, the implication is that we should only have just enough government to prevent men from eating each other, and not one iota more. It is very strange and inscrutable to me that Hobbes advocates a leviathan on account of man's sinful nature. Man may be sinful, but how will a leviathan help, if that leviathan is staffed by men too? After all, the government is also filled with men who themselves desire to swallow their neighbors.

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."--Ludwig von Mises