The first book of Aristotle’s Ethics addressed the basis of attaining happiness. The means to this end was placed upon the state to which there was a great degree of dependence. Moreover, aspects of a moral government identified by Aristotle were – as he proposed – the greatest contributor to humanity’s happiness (cf. 1.2-5; 10.8). This essay proposes to compare government and happiness by showing the proper tenets through which government can ensure happiness; in contrast, this essay will show that happiness is not always dependent upon government. 
Aristotle asserted that “fine and just actions” are the investigation of political science (1.3). “Political science spends most of its pains on making the citizens to be of a certain character, viz. good and capable of noble acts” (1.9; cf. 10.8). All sciences beneficial to man fall under the umbrella of political science because the latter’s aim is for “the good of man” (1.2; cf. 10.7). What Aristotle recognized was that man was not an isolated being, but that he is a corporate being “born for citizenship” (1.7; cf. 8.1, 9). Although a social being, man is sometimes driven by his passions and he may live a life of enjoyment which is conducive to being the most vulgar of men (1.5).
The politician – in studying political science – “wishes to make his fellow citizens good and obedient to the laws” (1.13; cf. 10.9). Since virtue is studied by politicians above all things (Ibid), the method to truly determining what is good for man is somewhat pragmatic but can also be natural (cf. 1.3). The most natural portion of man is his soul, and this should be the focus of the student of political science (1.13) in order to procure the happiness sought. Aristotle advocated that it was through the laws that man could become good since the law ordained what is good; moreover, the student of political science – having later become a legislator after having been well advanced by the formation of habits – becomes capable of stimulating men to virtue by pressing them forward with the motivation of nobility (10.9).
With the correct motivation and the right people in office, government is capable of creating an environment conducive to happiness. However, those virtues which create such an environment must be maintained, and this has proven hard in times past. When a government first begins it does so with noble leaders – though not always – whose interest is a better tomorrow. However, after time the virtue has waned and the initial formation forgotten because an appreciation of the beginning is lost in the annals of history (cf. Judg. 2:10). The very reason government must exist is to regulate the behavior of men within a society. If men are apt to live the lives of beasts, are not governments also capable of doing the same?
Aristotle identified the transitions a government could take although their initial beginning may have been built upon that which was best for humanity. Those governments which transition are: monarchy to tyranny, aristocracy to oligarchy, and timocracy to democracy (8.10-11). The former of each – being without fault – is subject to degrade into unwanted forms which remove the conducive environment of happiness altogether. In the United States’ present condition there is the degradation of a democratic-republic into a form of socialism that – if not constrained by its founding documents – is subject to: a) communism or b) another revolution. The oppressiveness of degradation creates civil unrest and burdensome taxation which restrict portions of happiness if not the right to pursue such.
The reason why happiness cannot be found solely in the operation of government is because “the statesman…aims at despotic power and honour” (10.7). Even here the degradation is not only within a society, but in individuals of power and their endeavor to obtain a greater degree of power over the many. Anaxagoras supposed happy men to not be rich or despots (10.8). However, if happiness is not found in government, from where shall it come? True happiness is not given by governments, because one may live in an oppressive state and still find happiness. The source of said happiness is found within God (cf. 1.9). While the Christian concept of God differs from the Aristotelian concept of “gods,” the premise that true happiness is divinely sanctioned stands (cf. 10.8). One may learn happiness – or any synonym thereof – through the knowledge of and presence of God. Through the greatest trials man is subject to hopelessness and weariness, and government cannot remove these feelings. It was not the power or might of the state that gave the apostle Paul reason to admonish the Philippians to “rejoice in the Lord always” (Phil. 4:4 esv);[1] rather, the source of Paul’s joy was in knowing of and having the “peace of God, which…will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:7).
[1] This is especially true given that Paul wrote Philippians from Roman imprisonment (cf. Phil. 1:7, 12-14; 4:22).
