The other day, I came across this quote.

“The ancient thinkers would argue that because it has such power to train the habits of its citizens, a government’s actions must be limited by questions of virtue. Without concern for virtue as the final end, we invite mass confusion about the nature of law.”

Virtue means moral excellence. So, in effect, the author of this quote asserts that government should seek moral excellence as its final end.

In the broader context of governance, I can’t find fault in this thinking. Consider the governance of a church. Clearly, pursuit of Christian virtue should guide the actions of church government. But it seems likely the individual who wrote this quote was not talking about governance in the abstract.  Rather she meant government as we understand it in the modern sense – the institution controlling and directing the state.

In this statist context, I would argue government cannot pursue moral excellence as its final end because its means of achieving any end is in-and-of itself immoral.

Government primarily relies on aggressive force, or the threat of such force, to coerce its subjects into desired behaviors. It utilizes the same threat of violence to fund its very existence.  The author of this quote alludes to the coercive nature of statist government when she refers to “the power to train the habits of its citizens” – in other words, its ability to force individuals into desired modes of behavior.

The assertion here is that a fundamentally violent institution should use the force at its disposal to mold people into a virtuous society. But can we really have a virtuous society if violence, threats and coercion serve as its driving force?

I think not.

Governance can only pursue virtue as its final end in voluntary communities. At its core, statism rejects moral excellence, trading it in for a system rooted in intimidation, bullying and force.