Excellent question. The answer was delivered by Plato a number of years ago, but it comes down to the hazards of human life, doesn't it?
The grandparents of the Hon. David Crockett of Tennessee were murdered in a massacre by Creek and Cherokee Indians in 1777. The area where they lived needed at a bit more government. At the time, most of the local men were away fighting the Revolution—against the too-much-government of Britain.
Years later, President Andrew Jackson ignored Federal treaties and dispossessed the Cherokees, sending them by force on the "Trail of Tears" to Alabama in a hard winter. The Cherokees needed less government—at least, less government by the President.
Congressman David Crockett spoke out against Jackson's usurpation to defend his family's former enemies, and it cost him his political career, as he knew it would. He was a firm Constitutionalist. He lost re-election to Congress due to Jackson's meddling and headed for the Alamo—announcing, "You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas." Crockett could have used less government (Federal interference) in the election. And perhaps more at the Alamo.
That’s a good response. And I thank you. I would argue, thnough, that at this point Americans face few existential threats of the nature that the Hon Congressman did. And for such existential threats that we do face, such as radical islam, the governance we do have is clearly not up to the task.
Few organizations and fewer governments are going to voluntarily reduce their size and scope. And they sure aren’t going to do it because an unruly rabble of conservatives ask them to do so. If we want freedom and the room to be virtuous and conservative, it’ll have to be done in spite of the political class and outside of their scope of control.