If you don't have time to make all those critical decisions or it if it just stresses you out to confront all those choices, you can elect the government to do it for you by electing a government which will tax you to do it.
On the other hand, if you would rather making those decisions for yourself, then you will elect a government who will eject the government, and leave you free to choose.
And that's the difference dear reader between a liberal and a conservative. namely the presumed capacity of folks to make intelligent and reasoned decisions. Now of course, some things the government can do better without our middling choices (e.g., national defense, road construction, etc), and some things we can do better than the government (e.g. choosing what food or housing to buy). And then there are those things in which we are not quite sure which way to go (medical care, education, etc.). But the tilt in the argument ultimately rests upon an implicit attitude about the quality of the very wits we bring to making decisions. If we believe that we are inherently smart folk whose selfish interests dovetail with the common good, then it's good to move off as many decisions to individual folks as we can. On the other hand, if we are inherently stupid and will make decisions that will eventually destroy human civilization, then it's important that the government step in to hold our hand and make our decisions for us.
On the other hand, a conservative believes in the audacity of intelligence, which presumes that average folk will have the audacity to make the right decisions with their money, and invest it in areas where they can make even more money by serving the common wheal, such as business creation or investment, and thus end up like the ants in the same fable, but this time with a lot of seed corn in the bank.
And the rest, well, that's just BO.