In the entire history of humanity man has never been offered a choice in government of absolute good. Even the best government is the least evil, it is not and cannot be truly good. That concept is the very basis of the Constitution, it's why it is built on a balance of powers. A truly good government shouldn't have its ability to do good limited by restrictions.
The ends don't justify the means.
Some ends justify some means. This is so obvious that it shouldn't even require argument, but I guess it does.
A terrorist holds 50 people hostage, with them wired to be blown up if the police attempt to rescue them. A sniper can take him out and save the 50 people. But we can't do that, because the end of saving 50 innocent people's lives does not justify the means of blowing the terrorist's head off.
It seems to me that this whole ends and means discussion tends to descent into idiotic positions on both sides. A Commie, for instance, will argue that all means are justified to advance humanity towards Communism. A pacifist or libertarian may argue that no ends justify the slightest deviation towards unpleasant means.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, this argument just diverts us from the true issue: What means are justified by a particular end?
“In the entire history of humanity man has never been offered a choice in government of absolute good.”
The entire history of humanity? Perhaps the City of Enoch would fit that description. It is possible for people to be good and to expect their leaders to be good. It all depends on their desire and the kind of society they want to live in.
Even the best government is the least evil, it is not and cannot be truly good.
"Argue for your limitations and sure enough they're yours." Richard Bach. The best government is not evil and is instead morally and ethically good.
A terrorist holds 50 people hostage, with them wired to be blown up if the police attempt to rescue them.
The terrorist believes the ends justify the means. The terrorist has initiated force against 50 people. He's a criminal. He has chosen to deny his own ability to persuade by reason and has denied his victims the ability to persuade by reason.
A sniper can take him out and save the 50 people. But we can't do that, because the end of saving 50 innocent people's lives does not justify the means of blowing the terrorist's head off.
Are you insane? (/rhetoric) Of course the sniper takes out the terrorist. It's moral and ethical to use force in self-defense against a person that is initiating force. The means -- using force in self-defense -- justifies the end. The end is saving 50 people.
"No exceptions to the immorality of initiatory force exist. No matter how "noble" the ends, they never justify the means of initiating force, fraud, or coercion against any individual. Any government or activity that depends on or uses initiatory force, threat of force, or coercion is immoral and destructive... While all governments have the power, none ever have the moral right to initiate force or coercion against any individual. The only beneficial and moral laws are those designed to protect the life and property rights of individuals from initiatory force, the threat of force, and fraud. In turn, the only moral use of force is for self-defense: That is for protection of oneself, property, or country from force initiated by other individuals or governments. ...Self-defense by any means, including force, is not only a basic moral right, but a moral duty."
INITIATORY FORCE -- THE PRIME EVIL