It appears Americans have adopted statism

Everyday I am stunned. I am shocked at how quickly people just take to statism. Our elections tomorrow yield only horrible outcomes. Perhaps, at one time, elections presented us with clear choices. We could choose between liberty, a democratic process, and economic freedom and the darker forces of oppression, central-planning, and dictatorial control. I wish we could have such an election now - it would be nice to hear the sound of liberty. Instead, the side for liberty has been silenced. The only choices presented to us for tomorrow (on the Maryland ballot) are George "Patriot Act" Bush, John "National, socialized health" Kerry, David "make the earth such a pristine place by making it impossible for man to live there" Cobb, Michael "we should just pick up all of our toys and shut ourselves inside our borders" Badnarik, Michael "I love God more than Bush does" Peroutka, and Ralph "I can ruin anything with pseudo-science, or even just by showing up" Nader. There are a few write-in candidates. It is really difficult to tell that they are even running for the highest public office in the land. There are not even any web-sites dedicated to their causes.

So, which of those candidates stands for freedom? Which one will defend this Republic, this whole Republic (i.e. not just the one's who are their supporters)? What happened to principles? All out the window. What we are left with is, as South Park crudely put it, is a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. I will stand up for my principles. I could never bring myself not to vote. And I can never bring myself to abandon my values so easily. I will write in "No Confidence" tomorrow for many of the major positions up for grabs. I recognize that there will never be such a thing as the "perfect candidate". However, is a "good candidate" too much to ask for?

The nation has accepted the idea that the government has a role in regulating our lives. The nation's creators disagreed and attempted to create a system of checks and balances based on a constitution that treated the people as sovereign. The Constitution limits the power of the government, not the people. The Constitution also applies only within the public sphere. Its application to private relationships (marriage, abortion, employment, and trade) in recent decades is something to lament. Notice that each of the Amendments included in the Bill of Rights restricts only PUBLIC action - not private action. (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)

Judicial activism and the "make-it-so" attitude have broken the meaning of those words and twisted them around so much that we can even believe that they are "open to interpretation".
What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is confusing?
Does this "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" mean anything anymore?

A presidential debate on principles would have been interesting:
One one side - freedom, on the other side statism.
Instead of asking how to defeat terror and protect this nation without restricting the rights and freedom of the people, the candidates differed on what rights to restrict and how much to restrict them.
Instead of asking if a national, socialized plan for health care should even be undertaken, the candidates resorted to a scuffle on what types of things to fund and how much.
Instead of making a decision on social security and discussing the fact that it is a Ponzi Scheme, the candidates instead bickered on "how to save it". What about ENDING it?
Americans no longer choose between living free or dying. They bicker amongst themselves about the best method of suicide.

JM