The fact that some people or nations behave in a particular way does not in any way determine whether that behavior is moral.

States in and of themselves aren’t moral under your framework because they can only exist by threat and use of force.

But some of us are interested in solutions for the real world instead of the debating the merits of unfeasible utopias.

I, too, would enjoy a stateless peaceful utopia of equitable commerce, but that has zero bearing on how we should decide public policy. Foraging for utopias is the same kind of naïveté Marxists trot out again and again and were it ever enacted at scale it would lead to the same kind of human suffering.

Fair enough. What is that minimum?

The proposed minimum is always to grant the needed power to cover unlimited property rights, but not universal healthcare.

It would be difficult to impossible for me to try to think of every feasible scenario in a HN post, but here's some off the top of my head: national defense, stopping people from physically harming others, enforce voting rights, establish trade agreements with other nations, etc.

No, but the fact that it results in demonstrably better outcomes in pretty much every case does.