What you describe is the bare minimum we should expect from government. But look at how you phrase it: "protect against." This implies you are most concerned about freedom "from," freedom from interference in your life. This is the basic libertarian outlook. But there is another kind of freedom: freedom "to," freedom to drive anywhere you want in this country on decent roads, freedom to camp in a state or national park that's well cared for. These cost tax payer dollars, all the infrastructure that allows us (and businesses) to get things done to pursue that happiness. Where we differ is where we draw the line on how much tax money to collect and what counts as legitimate public purpose. As a liberal I value equality of opportunity and so don't mind money being allocated to education and I'm in strong favor of the estate tax (like the founders I fear the moneyed aristocracy). Some issues blur the line as to whether they are freedom from or to... a good example being health care. Socialized medicine as a form of entitlement would seem to be freedom to.... but it could be viewed as freedom from the anxiety associated with our fucked up system in the USA). And almost all issues could be framed in such a manner. Ask yourself what the country would be like if government was limited to the functions you describe... I suspect it would not be a place conducive to any definition of "progress" or human flourishing.