Regarding my answer to an argument of practicality vs morality, I think I have already given an answer in one of my previous posts. In my opinion, we shouldn't apply ethics framework to governments or states, that is, we shouldn't measure them by moral standards, but rather stick to effectiveness or expedience criteria...
Okay, what metric shall we use for effectiveness? I would say we should use freedom/liberty as our metric. That again gives us anarchy, succeeding at 100%.
Actually, there are many objective metrics to measure the efficiency of the state existing nowadays for this very purpose. Economic growth as one of the most evident and encompassing example of such a metric. Also, how are you going to define freedom/liberty in more or less objective terms and would it be a moral issue then?
The problem is this: if you decide to use economic growth as a metric, then you are setting up economic growth as being valued more highly than other factors. Say some people would want equality over economic growth. Either way, this is a moral decision.
The basic principle is this: the ends (your metrics) don't justify the means. So some system might result in more economic growth, but that doesn't mean it's right to force it on people - maybe they value something else more highly than that economic growth. Or some system might result in better equality, but it would be wrong to force it on you or others who believe economic growth should be paramount (just an example). Or maybe reducing traffic deaths is the number one goal, or childhood obesity.
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny. Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways. The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).