You speak of "the law" as if you were discussing laws of nature that government had to "properly staff" to deal with. But these are not objective laws of nature. These laws are demands made by government itself, so "objective statements of fact, such as the government is understaffed relative to the task of enforcing law" is just saying that it's an objective fact that government doesn't have all the staff they need for the task of fully enforcing their growing list of demands. If that's all you meant, I agree with you.
But if your statement that government was "hugely understaffed" meant to imply to any extent that government ought to be expanded, that would be ideology, not fact, and I disagree.
The way you put makes government growth seem like some nebulous cancer.
Putting it some other way doesn't change the facts. They add new laws, regulations, policies, and edicts each year to what you position as some sort of objective "task of enforcing law". That would be fine if they also revoked a similar number of laws, regulations, and demands, letting people go back to managing those affairs for themselves. But that's not their way. They don't give power back. When government decides to give itself more power, the only way the people ever get it back is when government lowers its enforcement priority and shifts staff to exercising other powers.
The government has grown far faster than the economy for over a century. It has grown far faster than the population it governs. Though good government is valuable (I'm no anarchist), bad government is destructive, and you always have some of both. A government that removed defective policies at the rate healthy tissue removes defective cells could evolve into something wonderful. But ours doesn't work that way, and until it does, any implication that the government is hugely understaffed and desperately needs to grow larger is an ideological claim I'll dispute. If you weren't implying a need for more government, I don't dispute your statement.