If we made a libertarian-authoritarian scale for every government in human history, I think we would find that the ones on the extremes tend to be unstable and make their people unhappy. However, closer to the middle, there is stability and prosperity.

Personally, I see the US as much closer to the center than most probably do, which is why the western world is pretty well run.

Some general examples:

No government: Complete chaos, collapses instantly.

Anarchy (government has no coercive power and joining is consensual): No one "has to" follow the rules, so not much is different.

Lawless democracy (people make every last decision by vote): All but the largest decisions are impossible to make due to how hard it is for an entire country to vote on all the crimes committed every day.

Direct democracy (Greece): Subject to mob rule, rumors and media have tons of power, still relatively unstable

Republic (Rome): Finally stable, but corruption begins to appear

Modern Republic (Probably you): You lose even more control by allowing the government to choose what it can and can't do. Still, most societal problems that rise up begin to fade away after a century or so due to immense popular stress.

Authoritarian republic (US during WWII): Less personal freedom, but plenty of jobs and very stable. Spending is offset by growth.

Weak Monarchy (UK before the king was entirely powerless): Still good, but freedom starts to become a slight issue.

Moderate Monarchy (King George III era - in UK, not US): Some people begin to have concerns about personal freedom, but it is still an effective government.

Strong Monarchy (Feudal Europe): Many people are poor and powerless. The country as a whole is still an OK place to live.

Dictatorship (Gorbachev-era USSR): Oppression becomes obvious, although there are still times the people are happy.

Complete dictatorship (Stalin): Mass genocide of own people. No freedom.

Absolute power (North Korean labor camps): Nothing about it is good. Nothing.