"A government should be a secondary consideration (if that), in society, not the primary determinant of its economy and life. By making itself more central, governments suffocate the very people they ostensibly seek to assist."

Justin. In your world, what should be first and then second and then third. I think you should explain yourself.
I like that government is the prime determinent. Because I do not want mob rule. I do not want religious rule. I do not want BP RULE AKA the big private sector boss. Of all those bosses I would take the government boss. Because with the government boss, at least an individual has a voice, a weapon, a vote, a jury of their peers.

Your own response indicates that you agree that the government should not be primary: The individual is prior to the government, with the latter serving the former. With regard to various social institutions, they all have inherent power — religions through existential beliefs, businesses through economic influences, academia through a presumption of deep knowledge — and in a social context, they should all filter their power through individuals, who are free to place them in whatever order they prefer. The idea is to keep those sources of power independent, and independently powerful.

Choosing the one institution that we permit police and taxation power as the hub for social action is certain to bring us to a place in which you'll find that you only have a voice, a weapon, a vote, a jury of your peers when you agree with the government.

But the point of my post is that it's a very suspicious thing when that taxing institution insulates itself from economic hardship on the claim that the financial well-being of its employees is a matter of economic survival. Very convenient.