Frédéric Bastiat on the "people are no good" premise

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?  Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?  Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

~ Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

1850

David Bergland on the "PANG" (People Are No Good) premise

This fallacy is found in almost every argument for government regulation or intrusion into peoples' lives.  The unstated premise is that people are weak, stupid, helpless, incompetent, dishonest and dangerous to themselves and others.  Consider these examples: Social Security programs are necessary because people would not otherwise provide for their own future; the draft is necessary because not enough people would be willing to defend America; drug laws are necessary because without them we would be a nation of stoned-out people incapable of doing anything; compulsory school attendance laws are necessary because parents wouldn't educate their children.

The PANG premise has a huge logical hole in it.  Those who use it always exclude themselves from the class of "people" who are weak, stupid, helpless, incompetent, dishonest and dangerous to themselves and others.  If the PANG premise were valid, the last thing anyone would want is a large powerful government managed by such people, running your life and mine.  As one wag put it, "If people are basically good, you don't need a government; if people are basically evil, you don't dare have one."

The reality is that most people, most of the time, act properly.  They don't lie, cheat, steal, rape or murder.  Most of the time most of us act on the libertarian principle of respect for other human beings, recognizing that they have the right to control their own affairs, and expecting that they will deal with us peacefully and honestly as well.

~ David Bergland, Libertarianism in One Lesson, p. 9

Brion McClanahan on how John Marshall believed in an "aggressive central authority"

[John] Marshall distrusted the people's capacity to govern and believed that liberty was best secured by an aggressive central authority and not by local or state governments.  John Randolph of Roanoke, a friend and bitter rival, agreed with Marshall on the dangers of democracy, or "King Numbers" as he called it.  Marshall truly believed the Constitution was, as Madison argued in Federalist No. 10, the only safeguard against the "demagoguery" of Patrick Henry and other state factions.  But, he unknowingly set the stage for the rapid growth of the central government in the twentieth century.  His goal was a conservative one - but in the end he only established the precedents for an over-mighty central government that was as subject to demagogues as any state or local faction.

~ Brion McClanahan, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers, pp. 293-294