Why is limited government appropriate to savage territory but not tamed territory? If anything, it seems it would be the opposite.
My understanding of the basic libertarian position, which I support, is this:
Freedom should include the exercise of all rights that do not tend to infringe the freedom of others.
IMO, that is not the "conservative" position, as it does not address family values. Anyway, my point is that in some "tamed" territory, specifically the urban environment, where people are crowded together, one's freedom is inherently limited by the close proximity of one's neighbors - your actions are much more likely to infringe the freedom of your neighbor than in unsettled or rural environments.
I think that is one good reason why city folk love ordinances so well, and why they are more inclined to look up to authority and vote for the party of authority, the Democrat Party. Not that the Republican Party is far behind in this respect.
Getting back for a moment to "family values," they are, IMO, within the province of families, not the province of government, as both national parties seem to imagine.