Government is by definition the initiation of force and the preventing of competition in whatever spheres the government sets up for itself. Who would, on average, be more attracted to such a position? The man who values liberty and property and limits on the assault and theft or the man who does not think he will do well within the valuing of liberty and property? The latter may avoid competition and all of its messiness by assuming the role of government. There he may take without asking, he may choose for others whether they want him to or not, he may play at unearned power.
It is he who does not wish to produce and engage in voluntary trade who will be most attracted to government. That is a real risk. Why, we may ask, does he seek to live parasitically off of those who labor and trade? It is likely that very often he finds it easier and more efficient to assault and theft.
What we should destroy is that mythical divine being who operates in government in “service” to the rest of us. Are you kidding me? If you want to serve your fellows, do. But why not restrict yourself to serving those only who voluntarily invite you. But we know where that happens. In the free market.
Government is by definition monopoly on coercion and violence. It cannot escape that definition without ceasing to be government. Less than that it is simply another trying to survive by providing goods and services voluntarily. But we already have enough to deal with in the criminal element without establishing an air of legitimacy over some criminal activities.
It is too bad that in addition to being a monopoly on assault and theft, government will tend to attract he who would be more inclined to its use. This only multiplies the wrongs done.