Bottom line outside of our physical self (our ability to speak to think), our ability to define what is mine and yours and when one has caused damages to another requires legal, moral and cultural frame works with broad tacit consent to exist and be upheld. Government like in anything makes things constant and stagnant when it assumes universal and involuntary provision of a good or service and in property rights and legal frameworks even many libertarians feel this is a proper place for the government to impose its static and stagnating barriers.
*Not an unreasonable view, if you believe property rights have one perfect immutable definition why would you want to let people challenge it, though as we can see in the issues that plague our criminal justice system the devil is in the details and angels always come in the form of alternatives and competition.
My view is nothing is ever perfect but can always get better when you leave room to develop and try alternatives in small voluntary experiments. (Nothing voluntary will ever be on a universal scale and that’s a feature not a bug). I apply this same thinking to legal, moral and cultural frameworks... allow innovation to occur.
*On that I generally see legal, moral and cultural conflicts as the mechanism from which innovation occurs because conflicts like prices are signals of a need for innovation.