A Principled Loss of Freedom

There is a huge difference between liberals and left with liberals being far more conservative than the left. But that point is not important.

What is important is the implied definition of government as being this foreign entity that should be as limited as possible so that it does not get in the way of the people.

The problem that the above definition has is when the gov't belongs to a democracy with democracy being defined as the people rule. The worth of such of a gov't is not measured in size or degree of control but to what degree it represents its people. The more that a gov't in a democracy represents its people, the better the gov't. But the more such a gov't represents special interests or elite centers of power, then the less worthwhile that gov't is and the less the people rule despite the existence of elections.

What conservatives who believe in small gov't, that is a gov't with little domestic influence but usually one with a big military, must realize is that those in the private sector can abuse others in the private sector. And it is just as much the responsibility of gov't to protect those who are abused by fellow citizens as it is to protect its citizens from foreign enemies.

James 5:1-6 talks about the financial abuse that some force on their own workforce. Such abusers will face the judgment of God despite Rush Limbaugh's protest cries of "class war." I guess the scriptures proclaim that such a war exist. And I don't see any problem with the gov't be a tool of the judgment if it decides to protect those being abused from such domestic enemies.

Modern liberalism is post-Marx and is defined by Marxist tenets such as redistribution. Read Paul Tsongas "A Call to Economic Arms" for a clarification of this point.
The NT is not a political document. Though there are postmills who would say so (eg., Rome and Rushdoony), there are more who say otherwise (esp. dispensationalists). While the NT acknowledges class struggle (the social dialectic) it does not define such as the origin of human problems, as did Marx. This heresy of Marxism is discussed thoroughly by the late Klaus Bockmuehl in "The Challenge of Marxism".

There are many things challenged by God's Word which are not the origin of human problems if we take sin as the origin of human problems.

Other than that, we can see that poverty and repression cause reactionary movements that do entail sin along with valid concerns and complaints.

In addition, you did not address the true problem of a democratic gov't which is to get the gov't to represent the people rather than the financial elite

... that we could fix government without changeing it into some sort of scalable quasi-marxist system. Trickle-down socialism is both effective and seductive.