Great reading! I'm not a statist but I'll try to play devil's advocate.

Don't you think we could state (it's still a simplification, but bear with me) that our moral judgements are based on both principles (deontological ethics) and consequences (consequentialism)? Maybe we determine good and bad through a heuristic process that takes into account both systems, making the answer "but it will be bad" not incompatible with logical claims.

Trolleyology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) is filled with examples where we cannot reasonably articulate the reasons why we make certain judgment calls. Maybe statists do need consequential arguments and anarchists are right to fall in their traps.