It seems to be a self-contrarian view, but I can understand where they come from. It's from two different rationales that can be linked through the magic of language. They can logically flow as such:

1) A government can only be trusted as much as that government fears the populace not tolerating tyrannical control and knowing the populace has the means to forcefully express their intolerance of tyrannical control.

2) If a government is adequately shackled, it can then be used to employ and enforce societally beneficial rules, such as no acts resulting in the non-government mandated murdering of another with the solitary exception of a defensive of self and others act ceasing the existence of a being who is very likely to cause grievously offensive harm to others.