other than the fact that it is against the interest of all for the government to dictate your life. in the current system, more can be gained through a less obtrusive and smaller government.
Ant colonies are successful.
Squabbling parties within the European Union could learn a lot about how to get along from the invasive Argentine ant population. Researchers have discovered an enormous "supercolony" of these ants that extends across 6,000 kilometers (3,728 miles) of Southern Europe.
That doesn't quite square with what you said earlier: Who comes up with what's moral? Whoever has the most power? In a democracy the people...in a dictatorship, the dictator. Scary, but unfortunately true.
This is summarized as "might makes right," and is in direct conflict with the primary tenet of libertarianism, that it is absolutely wrong to impose force on another. Your subtle qualification ("in the current system") implies that there are other valid moral approaches, which is contrary to the libertarian position.
Beyond that, you've given us a utilitarian argument as to what is moral, and you're assuming without justification that "what's best for all," has some measure of moral superiority. History provides numerous examples to the contrary -- of successful yet despotic regimes that relied on conquest and enslavement for their success, and for which "what's best for the ruling elite" was the primary goal.