Herring,

I wish I could remember the specifics (re: Ron Paul's Constitutional arguements).  What I remember was about six months ago, in a Republican debate, he cited some specific examples of the government directly circumventing the Constitution, and I simply did not agree. 

There is a lot of grey area, though, and I sympathized with his larger point.  And I can't really dispute your last paragraph.  I think that in a pinch, government is better not filling a void than filling it.  But even then, there are obvious contradictions.  The lack of immediate federal action after Katrina was rooted primarily in the legality of state vs. federal control.  But an emergency over-ride clearly would have been the "right" thing to do.  (just one such example)

I still come back to the basic premise that government's role ought to be oversight and regulation (not over-regulation).  It ought to be a check on private enterprise not a competitor.  It ought not to seek to solve social unrest by expanding its own payroll or by doling out handouts.  It ought not create distortions/subsidies in the economy. 

I realize there is a lot of naivite in the above statements.

Toward that end, we ought to reward competence over ideological purity.  Elitism ought not to be a dirty word but rather a requirement.  I want the best/brightest/smartest in those roles.  I don't give a damn if the president is a "man of the people."  The "people" flat out are not educated enough on the issues to decide.  Elitist?  You bet.  That's why I can't bring myself to rule out Obama even though in a blind position test I took with my wife, I slightly favored McCain.