[roc]

And yet by participating in this society you are directly supporting their ability to make such decisions, whether they side with or against you on a given issue.

If you actively pursue one of the many methods available to effect change, you can only do so via the same channels that allowed others to set up the status quo. Even securing a constitutional amendment against such laws would just underscore the right and ability of others to pursue their own amendment to overturn yours.

The only way to secure your victory would be to end representative democracy. And of course no other method of government would deliver a guarantee to respect your freedom to make such decisions free from their meddling.

So all that's left is no government.

[Turing_Machine]

"The only way to secure your victory would be to end representative democracy."

That would be why I prefer a constitutional republic to a democracy.

Edit: to be more specific, a constitutional republic that pays actual attention to the Tenth Amendment.

[Turing_Machine]

"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."

Do you see anything in the Constitution that grants the federal government the right to tell me what medications I choose to take?

I don't.

[roc]

The Constitution is a living document that provides the legal framework for testing the constitutionality of laws and a method for its amendment. It explicitly grants society, via representative government, the right to interpret, change and extend the Government's power.

To reject the power of society to, by following constitutionally-specified methods, give government this power is to reject self-government.