The purpose of the constitution is to limit the size of the federal government (obvious). The bargaining power of the people which you so clearly laid out is exactly what Ron Paul and libertarians ARE trying to protect. I often hear these well laid out arguments and feel like we're on the same side; that we have the same intents. It's how we achieve those intents that we differ so much.
Unless the powers are written into the constitution, the powers lie with the people and the state. It's within the state and local government that the bargaining power of each individual is the greatest. Where inevitable factions that do occur at ALL levels of government will have the least impact. We are in the greatest danger when these factions have absolute power over the entire national government. So even when a 'good' faction of eliminating racism controls the national government, I have to fight it. Because if/when the tide turns to a more negative outcome, I don't want the national government to have so much power.
I want to avoid the tyranny of the majority as do you. But it will and does happen. I'd prefer it to happen at the state level than the federal level, however, where it can be more easily over-turned. All of this being said, I've always been on the line when it comes to Civil Rights Laws at the national level. The only reason that I tend to push it towards the states is to prevent the slide down the slippery slope. But I do fear what could happen in some states...
You apparently are unaware of the part of the Constitution called "The Bill or Rights" - something Ron Paul's position is that the federal government should not enforce.
The foremost purpose of the Constitution was to establish a federal government authority - obviousy. Without it there would be no centralized government. It then goes on to also establish a Bill Of Rights each citizen has as a citizen of THE FEDERAL NATIONAL government, not the states.
Those two most obvious fundamental truisms about the constitution are lost to many Ron Paul supporters. It is the task of the FEDERAL government under THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS to protect those rights as a FEDERAL duty.
So when Ron Paul and his supporters come up with all manners of twisted logic in their pursuit of a return to racial segregation and discrimination in housing, employment and voting, what they are declaring is that they want the Confederacy in which FEDERAL constitutional authority and FEDERAL guarenteed RIGHTS under the FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS are placed either subserviant to each state or totally nullified by abolishing all federal enforcement and protection methods of those same CONSTITUTIONALLY guarenteed rights.
Historically, state and local governments have been far more tyannical and oppressive against individual rights because it takes much less to establish a majority to take control of government. That, too, is obvious enough to understand. If a community only had 3 voters, 2 of them could essentially do and deny anything to the other 1 with all the power of goverment. However, if there are 1000 people, those 2 have no real power to use government against that same 1 person.
"Small government" and "small population government" aren't the same at all. The more people the harder it is to single out someone or a group as targets.
As example for conservatives and liberals. Would you want San Francisco's city council's wishes to replace the federal bill of rights in relation to you?
There also are massive commerce issues with replacing a federalized system of government with a confederacy or collection of independent states. Independent government entities attempting to act in harmony as a collective isn't working out to well for the EU - yet that system - only with 3 times as many final governing bodies (50 days) is really whatRon Paul advocates.
I do have presume that Ron Paul is a full supporter of the European countries forming a collective unity as a confederacy of independent nations, as that is what he wants the 50 states of the USA to be in effect.
