The most popular justification for the State seems to be this: man is evil, selfish, hostile or violent, and, as a result, government must be instituted to maintain order and protect rights. But, what are these Statists really saying? They are saying that man is evil, therefore other men must rule over him! The only retort would be that not ALL men qualify as evil and that these noble men should rule. In this case, it would make more sense to argue for a monarchy in which the rulers were noble, wise and courageous. Yet, in any case, how are the rulers chosen today? The modern Statists cheer for democracy--that the rulers be elected by the masses (potentially evil men)! At a glance it is a wonder why more people don't laugh at the whole idea! After all, most of us spent time in schools where class presidential elections were mere popularity contests with the stakes ilimited to control over the Homecoming dance theme. In modern democracy this popularity contest occurs with the stakes of massive redistribution of wealth and resources to favored interests on the line. Nonetheless, in this sense, a man, who may or may not be evil and violent, is elected by a majority, plurality or even a "5-4 Supreme Court" of (mostly) evil men, in order to use violence against other men in order preserve order and rights . . . truly absurd indeed.