There is current in modern political science that sees the concept of perfection as central to social structures. The idea is that man is imperfect and is incapable of perfecting his nature. As such, any attempt at perfection is necessarily misdirected, wrongheaded, and therefore dangerous. The assumption is that this quest for perfection leads to utopianism, which is always assumed to be bad (no doubt based on the sinister characteristics of the famous historical utopias).

But can we make all these assumptions? To begin with, what does it mean to say that man is imperfect? It is true that men are inclined to do bad things–it is a part of their natural instincts to fulfill base desires no matter what the costs are to higher interests. Now, based on this concept, can it be said that man is incapable of improving himself and attaining perfection? Certainly, all would agree that men can improve themselves. They can fend off bad habits, they can learn and grow intellectually and spiritually. In this way men are capable of improvement. To attain perfection is a different story. Perfection would mean attaining the status of being unable of making mistakes and even getting rid of the baser motives in his nature–something that is not possible and even less desirable.

So, what does it mean that we can improve but that we cannot attain perfection? Naturally, people take this to mean that we are always prone to do wrong, and that, in order to establish and maintain a civil society, we need to establish and maintain a government that prevents that wrong. As some have said, if given the opportunity, people will violate each other’s rights. And so a government is necessary to ensure that we don’t violate each other’s rights.

But that simple suggestion begs a number of questions. To begin, why are we to assume that government can do anything to prevent or quell this urge to violate others’ rights? If people are naturally inclined to violate the rights of others, there is nothing that a government can do to change that. Sure, the government can be built to protect people’s rights, but the instinct to violate those rights will always be a threat.

This brings up another question: Is the government aimed at suppressing the opportunity to violate others’ rights? If so, to what extent do we suppress the opportunity? Are we to ensure that people do not have the opportunity to steal cars or vandalize buildings? Doing so would mean limiting their ability to build cars and buildings as well. The only real way to ensure people don’t have the incentive to steal and vandalize is to make sure that they have the ability to build and own their own cars and buildings, in which case they will see the virtue in abstaining from theft and vandalism. And, increasing the regulation in this matter in order to eliminate the opportunity to violate rights is the sure way to eliminate the natural safeguard against it.

And, finally, there is always the issue when building any hierarchical structure such as a state government–that is, the exploitation of power and, ultimately, tyranny. We can agree than men are imperfect, and so they would be imperfect in any capacity, even when in the role of authority and power. Lord Acton has eloquently put it that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Ronald Reagan summed it up expertly: “We have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”

The diligent thinker cannot think of a single way that man’s inherent imperfection necessitates external government. While he certainly accepts the notion that man might be imperfect by nature, it cannot found an argument on government. Indeed, man’s imperfection might actually be a good reason to limit government or get rid of it altogether.