As far as it being an extreme example, you may not be too familiar with the history of the western states (you can also look at the current battles around the Colorado river).  But if it is too extreme for you, then you can check out the battles between the farmers and ranchers in US history.  As Scott Cook from U of Virginia details in his take on the history of Barbed wire [emphasis mine]

The greatest cause against barbed wire grew out of the closing of the Open Range. With the purchase of land and fencing in of the range, many small ranchers and cowmen were left without land for their cattle to feed on and without water for their cattle to drink from. Thus with the growing hatred of barbed wire, and now a new impetus for survival, many men of the frontier began to take action. The first steps were simply cutting down the fences, but quickly, the scene developed into a full range war. Small interests were matched against big interests, as blood was shed, fences were cut to pieces, and communities were torn apart. Vigilante justice reigned supreme, and terror seized the land. Eventually state legislatures were called to end the problem, which did not cease until the late 1880's. In the end, the barbed wire had won. Yet the range wars had made their mark on the history of the West as a final stand against the arrival of change.

The struggle over scarce resources can be easily the prism through which one can view the history of civilization, not just the United States.  And in the struggle, resolving the conflicts requires the government to intervene.

...is quite obviously one purpose of government.

So we both agree that this is one purpose of government.  And it would be reasonable to draw the conclusion that men left to their own accord will come into these conflicts.  The free hand is not all decent and good, but can lead to violence and discord within communities.

And so as we all pursue our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness conflict will ensure.  If one claims the individual is supreme, than you cannot deny the individual the right to do as he or she pleases.

The founding fathers did not believe the individual was supreme.

The founding fathers did not believe the state was supreme.

They understood that there was a never ending struggle for balance between the two.  The reason they created the Senate with its six year terms was to be a balance to the masses who were believe too easily swayed by their momentary emotions and passions.

Lets look at the preamble of the Constitution

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defenses, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is if anything a lot to be interpreted here.  What is "Justice"?  Whose definition will we go with?  How does one "establish" this thing we understand it?  Through the courts, set up by the people.  What is "domestic Tranquility"? And how does one "insure" it? - it requires power to do, and the right to over-ride the protests of the individual.

And the general Welfare.  Now there is ambiguous statement.  But it is not the Welfare of the individual, but the general Welfare.  Which means that there are going to be cases when specific individuals will have to make some kind of sacrifice as the government promotes this general Welfare.

When it needs to act in the general interest, it can, does does, and always has.

As I would argue the core of the conflict is not that someone as yourself does not believe the government shouldn't act in the general interest, but that you and I will argue over what is in the general interest. 

But that very government can only act powerfully if it overlays a vibrant, productive, diverse, and economically stable private sector.

Lets look at diverse for a moment.  The free market created an environment in which monopolies developed.  The individuals who were in control of these monopolies not only were unwilling to release their ability to sustain their monopolies, but actively used the power derived from these monopolies to undermine the general Welfare.  This can also be seen where a company seeking a better bottom line sends its jobs oversees, even though it is making a profit, just not as much profit as they would like.

It is a basic lie that liberals as matter of principle do not want a vibrant private sector.  Most liberals, like conservatives, work in non-governmental jobs.  They certainly don't want to lose their job, the roof over their house, the chance to buy the new car.  They are not anti-business.  Rather they believe that business should in the words of the US Constitution, do their part to ensure insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare.

And here is the kicker:  The more that the private sector ensures insure domestic Tranquility and promotes the general Welfare, the less incentive there is for the government to intervene.

The environmental movement in this country was given a huge boost in 1970s when the Love Canal incident came to light.

In the mid 1970s Love Canal became the subject of national and international attention after it was revealed in the press that the site had formerly been used to bury 21,000 tons of toxic waste by Hooker Chemical (now Occidental Petroleum Company).

...

Ten years after the incident, New York State Health Department  Commissioner David Axelrod (not to be confused with presidential advisor David Axelrod) stated that Love Canal would long be remembered as a "national symbol of a failure to exercise a sense of concern for future generations."

And this is very important:

I have never argued that the government should have no confines, such as, hmmm, that the government shouldn't tell a woman whether she can or cannot have an abortion.  I stand up for freedom of the press and free speech (and will fight for your right to say what you want).  It is telling that one of the bugaboos of the conservatives is the ACLU.  Nothing is more telling than that about how truly concerned conservatives are about real liberty and the rights of the individual.

The point is that the general welfare is supreme, not the individual and not the state. When the individual interferes with the general welfare, he or she needs to be limited.  When the state interferes with the general welfare, it should be limited.

And then we are back to arguing about what is the general welfare.

I want a more perfect Union. So do you.  Let debate rage on.

So say I.

The real hoot is that Levin desires to destroy Mr. Damon is because he expressed his concern about the possibility of Palin becoming president. Now what deep thinking individual would be concerned with that possibility...oh, yeah, that's right, all of them.

I've never listened to a Levin show before and now I doubt I ever will after that little example. But he does seem to have some serious cred with the conservative hardcores.  Eric Erikson in his review of Ameritopia:

Yet again, Mark Levin has another best seller. In all honesty, I have told Rush Limbaugh several times it is time for him to write another book. But, and no offense Rush if you read this, Mark has filled the void ably and, unlike a lot of talk radio hosts in America, fills that void with intellectual fire power, not pablum and crap.

So I guess dufus and nudnik has become intellectual fire power.

But now it seems like he is taking the torch from the likes of Rush.  We might be seeing the Levin dittoheads more in this campaign season.  Oh joy.

From ICE:

In their report, TRAC used a data set that represents individuals removed — regardless of the fiscal year that removal occurred — that can be linked to an apprehension that occurred in 2005. TRAC then used this data set to identify what it claims are the total number of ICE apprehensions in FY 2005, which is inaccurate. That data set is a subset of FY 2005 apprehensions. This is merely one example of TRAC's flawed analysis.

Another response as related Leslie Berestein Rojas

Last month, ICE officials cited vastly different accounting methods: When counting criminal deportations, for example, the agency includes administrative deportations in which the individual had a past conviction. However, if the crime doesn’t factor into the deportation case, it’s typically not found in the immigration court records, which the TRAC report analyzed. Many immigrants, particularly those who are in the country illegally, are removed solely on administrative grounds, whether or not there’s a criminal history.

It is possible that the Syracuse TRAC had its own agenda and attempted to utilize the data in such a way to meet that data.  Or they were just not knowledgeable on how to interpret the data.

Moreover according to ICE

During FY11, ICE responded to 16,488 FOIA requests.

So should I let ICE know that you are willing to increase your personal taxes in order for them to hire more personnel in order to repond to data requests?  I guess this also means you are for bigger government.

Moreover, it is interesting that you have now taken the side of the academic institutions, given that they have been over run by liberals, if not the Marxists.

And I think at this point, I need to reiterate the point of this particular blog:

There is a lot of reasons for this (many of them having to do with personal issues of the participants that have nothing to do with the topic of the discussion), but a key to this dynamics is we spend most of our time focused on the manifestations of the ideological paradigms (the public policies, the social critiques, the economic behavior) rather than on the fundamental principles and assumptions. 

This current part of the thread is a perfect example of what I am talking about (of which I myself not immune).

I have no doubt you could provide "a very long list of egregious and unConstitutional affronts by the EPA" - but the heart of the matter goes back to an interpretation of the general welfare, etc.  I will state since the EPA, like all human institutions, is developed by and run by humans, there will be some mistakes, some over-reach.  Just as I could provide examples of under-reach by the agency.  But for the most part we would be talking past one another.  And that is the point.