How would you describe the Pax Romana under Caesar Augustus then? Would Rome have been better in an anarchic state? Clearly not. One must compare realistic alternatives, not abstract ideals.

Pax Romana should not be romanticized as it is, IMO. Firstly the governance of individual towns was so decentralized it could be considered near anarchic. That's not to say Rome wouldn't of loved to crush all under its boot, but it was limited by technology. Secondly, the vice and moral decay of Rome, and the short sighted plans of it's politicians are well documented. These laid the ground work for it's decay and demise. Third, it's growth and wealth was based on the sword and blood. Hardly fertile ground for a virtuous governance. A good counter factual would be if a empire decided to grow itself through tade and not conquest. How much capital was wasted in military efforts that could of been better spent elsewhere. An old example is the small cities of the medieval peninsula of now Italy.