This article will examine the pros and cons of both systems of government when dealing with the reality, which is a wide continuum of various dispositions with regards to selfishness. Some people are extremely benevolent to the point where it harms their own well-being, as others gleefully trample over the rights and dignity of others. Some business owners return their profits to the employees and gradually give away their ownership to dedicated employees as others viciously attack and replace employees who ask for any sort of recognition of their work. Some private citizens devote most of their time to philanthropy and choose careers primarily on how well they imagine they can benefit the world. Others form a strictly numerical decision about the financial returns of any given career path. The limited government system has already been shown to strictly perform better in situations of extreme selfishness. The limitations on government and associated decrease in potential returns to rent seeking lead to equilibrium with limited infringement of rights even by an extremely selfish populace. For the Socialist system, some gains were made through easier coordination for an entirely altruistic populace. However, the greater allowance for relational and situational knowledge to be used meaningfully in charity meant that the limited government situation performed better in that situation as well.

In a world where some people are altruistic, and others are self interested, a socialist system provides far more ability for abuses of rights than even a fully selfish world. Of course, socialism's best performance would be in the prior hypothetical where everyone cared more for the welfare of the nation and the other man than for themselves. However, the reality in which a wide range of selfishness exists would allow people in the private sphere and government to take advantage of those who are less self-interested. In government, self-interested politicians and altruistic politicians would be maximizing different conditions. Mathematically, it would be a complicated situation in which to reach equilibrium, because altruistic politicians would simultaneously have to maximize the good of the nation while also maximizing their chances of winning elections against potentially dangerous self-interested politicians. The contradictory nature of these two goals would give some electoral advantage to the selfish politicians. The results of those elections would be decided by a combination of the aggregate balance between self interest and altruism, and the ability of various groups to form coalitions. Without going into the political game theory too much, if a majority coalition was ever formed that could benefit greatly from violating the rights of a minority, the socialist system would essentially self-destruct. Whether from a social contract perspective or even just a desire to avoid tyranny, the underlying moral makeup of the people is critical to the long-term success of a socialist government. The large amount of cultural and historical factors that create a people's character means that the success of socialism is far too risky to attempt unless one can be certain of their people's virtue.