Values/preferences are subjective and they are not amenable to aggregation. They are also exclusively revealed through action. Voluntary (inter)actions reflect the subjective valuations of each participant in the economy. Each voluntary exchange makes both parties better off and, as such, is the “atom” of wealth creation (satisfaction of wants).
The problem with your above question is that it attempts to compare the aggregate “productivity” (wealth, aggregate satisfaction of wants) between two different states of the economy – an impossible task. Would an outcome whereby everyone was paid to do 100 push-ups a day, be more “productive” than an outcome whereby 20% of the population refused to work for less than $4/hr and chose leisure instead (i.e. were “unemployed”)? Sure, if you define productivity as “aggregate push-ups done per day”, then the former would be more “productive” than the latter. So what?
Again, values are subjective and your “warrants” above has no meaning. Of course, if you subjectively value a lot of order and structure, then perhaps putting 7 billion people in prison may be “warranted”. If you subjectively value a lot of peace and quiet, then perhaps poisoning the 7 billion may be more “warranted”, instead.
What feature of human behavior could possibly exist that would “warrant” the necessity of one group of humans to regulate another? What state of affairs would be brought about by such “regulation” and whose subjective valuations/preferences would it be reflecting the most?