Two scenarios - pick only 1

Scenario #1: Human nature tends toward the barbaric and destructive.

If this is the case, are those in government immune to these tendencies? I would think on the contrary...if this is the case the success of anyone would be dependent on crushing others for personal advancement using deception, manipulation, and any effective tactic. If this is the case, those who have risen to the top of the political ladder have been most effective, the most manipulative and deceptive of all. Furthermore, they are congregated together to collaborate with similar characters - a seething pool of power-hungry would-be rulers if not for pesky laws and checks and balances. If this is the case, is it not our responsibility to hold them accountable to the rule of law? Should such a group be allowed to start wars or to act according to their own unsavory personal interests at the expense of others? If this is the case, it seems to me humanity must be restrained from the tendency to consolidate power into the hands of the few - the power must be distributed as evenly as possible to withhold the destructive beast in all of us.

Scenario #2: Human nature tends toward the civilized and constructive.

If this is the case, the success of individuals depends on their ability to cooperate through voluntary contract in a mutually beneficial way. If this is the case, even the most brainwashed terrorist is in some way cognizant of the ingredients necessary for civilization - loyalty, virtue, love, honor, compassion. If this is the case, humanity doesn't need a powerful group of even the most bright and high-minded people to govern us...we simply need them to get out of the way so we can continue our virtuous work. They are only required to legitimize contracts, and keep us safe enough to mind our own business. If this is the case, all we need is the ability to exercise our rights to engage in mutually beneficial behavior to the greatest degree possible.

Unifying principle.

In the worst case, a powerful government seizes control of our liberty for its own destructive self preservation. In the best case, it is hardly necessary at all.

It is impossible to tag any political party to either of these as both are represented in virtually any organization. People's intentions are irrelevant and so is their zealousness so much as:

• The power they are given comes from others. And:
  
• None has authority to prevent another from engaging in legal self-beneficial behavior.
  

To whatever degree either of these tendencies exist in our society, the tendency to limit government to its smallest practical size is beneficial to any degree of both.

Conclusion

If we believe the second scenario happens to be true, as civilized individuals we are required to act accordingly, depending on the intellect of others to identify our ideals, validate them by evaluating our behavior compared to them, and emulate them accordingly. The minority of ruthless barbarians will drift away, becoming increasingly unpopular. This scenario requires more bravery than the former. But we should recognize that if the first is true we are doomed already.