How is it that otherwise peaceful men are turned into orchestrators of mass murder? Why is it that these same men believe they are doing the right thing? Why are products, like million-dollar missiles and twenty-ton rated bridges on dirt roads, made for which there is little to no consumer demand? Why are there programs that draw money from nearly everyone in the country, yet only a few people support?

The answer can be found, of course, in the nature of government.

The nature of government is that it is the only institution in society that does not rely on the voluntary cooperation of individuals. It relies on force. Since government is not at the mercy of consumers who buy a product, government need not produce anything. And in general, it does not. It redirects production, ceases production, or redistributes wealth. The result of this peculiar institution is that the production decisions of the many individuals are transferred, against their will, to a few individuals.

Much thought and debate has occurred throughout history as to the method that those few aforementioned men are chosen. Is the best system of government monarchy, democracy, or a republic? But the most important distinction is not by what process a few men come into the power of government, but the means by which government power is legitimized and upheld. For all government, no matter what form, must rely on the support of the people with the majority of enforcing power in society. In other words, whoever has the most guns decides whether a government stands or not.

So how is it that people legitimize a government? If government cannot exist through voluntary contract, why does anyone support it? The answer lies in the ethical justification that most people give to the government. This justification is that the process by which those few men came into power is one that legitimately represents the people. The deepest fallacy surrounding government is that it is the people. By this logic, if a given process results in men who represent the "common will" of the people, then the actions of those men are sanctioned by the people. These men cannot then infringe upon the rights of the people because they embody the people. The processes by which "representative" men are chosen have gone in and out of fashion throughout history: the latest trend is that anywhere elections are involved, the result is valid. The process that is currently fashionable is not important though. The important point is that a process exists that the people with the most guns believe in, and that through this process a few men have control of the institution of government.

These few men in charge of the government are now free to enforce their own wills for those of consumers. Although most people may believe government is legitimate, the government still uses force on them against their wishes. Anyone who doubts this statement need only question how many people would pay taxes if it were voluntary. Now that there exist a few men with the power to substitute their own arbitrary value scales for those of the people, is it any wonder that wacky things start to happen? If they believe that more of one good should be produced or that an object should only be produced by one method, they need only pass legislation and use the backing of the police and military. Instead of steel, roads, mail delivery, and virtually every other good or service being produced according to consumer demand, they are produced according to government demand. Since government must operate on the backing of armed force, politicians are far more likely to demand military products than the average citizen is. Missiles, tanks, nuclear bombs, and aircraft carriers are not made because they satisfy the desires of individual actors on the market. They are made because they satisfy the desires of the men in government. Without government, it is unlikely that weapons of mass destruction would be made at all.

As P.J. O'Rourke wrote, "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." And here is where wacky things really start to happen. Since politicians are now in a position where they can alter the market and redirect resources from Peter to Paul, anyone who wishes to forcibly redirect resources turns to the government for help. Special interest groups form to push their agenda onto the people, and government is exposed for what it truly is: the means by which one group of people loots another group. These interest groups are often regional people from a politician's area that hope for resources to be redirected from other parts of the country to theirs. Effective politicians will then use the common pot of pilfered money to build tunnels under cities, bridges over every stream, thousand-year dams on every pond, and the most expensive schools possible. As long as the money is not coming from their own district, the people are happy. Unfortunately for them, politicians from every other district in the country are trying for the same thing.

In short, products and programs that almost no one desire are made because they can be. As long as there exists a process by which a few men may impose their own value scales for those of the people, it will be done. People in California will pay for a tunnel underneath Boston that they will never use. A Post Office that everyone knows is inefficient maintains its monopoly on the market. Weapons of mass destruction are tested, though only a small minority of people desire war.

Peaceful men are turned into orchestrators of mass murder because a government exists that has the power of war. Decisions that affect many millions of lives lie in the power of very few individuals, and if they believe in the cause they will use their power. The reason these men believe that their actions, which have historically resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people, are just is that they believe in the fundamental lie of government. That is, that government results from a process by which the true wishes of the people are represented.