The clash between the big state and the small state is unnecessary, fruitless and confusing. All the more so because most of the bureaucratic burdens and unnecessary harassment of citizens are introduced by those governments that claim the mantle of the minimal state.
I suggest using a different distinction. A building state and a repressive state. In reality, every state implements both functions, but in many cases one is much more powerful and essential.
Imagine if in 1975 any Western or Eastern European state had wanted to enforce electric cars. What would it have done? Set up power plants, provide cheap electricity, build new power lines, enforce standards for chargers, maybe standards for battery replacement. He’d spend billions developing large capacity batteries at government research institutes. Maybe even a state-owned car company (or electric car company) would be created. Or he’d outsource some of it to privateers. He would certainly let them run a lot of services. However, the responsibility for building it would be the state’s. That would be the vision that the statesmen would present to the citizens.
In 2020, the state is not building anything. It simply issues a thousand bans and incentivizes private entities to participate in enforcing those bans. That’s it.
The state building versus the repressive state. The difference, among other things, is that in a building state, the political class believes in accountability for what it creates. In a repressive state, the political class believes in the market.