Would it have been February 22, 1933  when he formed the SA and SS as Auxiliary police? Sort of like mandatory service that Rahm talked about in "The Plan" and Obama called for onthe campaign trail?

Would it have been February 27, 1933  when the SA burned the Reichstag, trying to create a crisis and then assuming dictatorial emergency powers and ignoring the rule of law? You know like crisis situations with the  Swine Flu,  GM Bailout, extending wiretapping and rendition practices and the Patriot act, passing Obamacare and its unconstitutional individual mandate , or assuming powers over what can be transmitted on the internet, or even claiming a President needs no authorization from congress to invade another country?

Would it have been  March 13, 1933 when Hitler opened the New Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. Sort of like Obama's new Ministry of truth? .

Would it have been April 1, 1933 when the  Nazis staged a boycott of Jewish shops and businesses. You know, like the Progressive Unions  did in Wisconsin?

Would it have been  April 7th, 1933 when the  civil service administration, courts, and schools were purged of ‘alien elements’,- Sorta like how our Current Civil Service, politicization of Courts and schools are almost  entirely liberal now.

Would it have been April 11, 1933  when the Nazis issued a Decree defining a non-Aryan as "anyone descended from non-Aryan, especially Jewish, parents or grandparents. One parent or grandparent classifies the descendant as non-Aryan...especially if one parent or grandparent was of the Jewish faith." Sort of like Democrats now say Conservative Blacks are not Real Blacks, Conservative Gays are not real Gays,and Conservative women aren't real women?

Would it have been May 2, 1933 when all workers were forced to join the  new German Labour Front (DAF). You know, sort of like Obama's Card Check would allow goons to force people into unions without a secret ballot?

Would it have been  September 1933 when the  Nazis established the Reich Chamber of Culture, then excluded Jews from the Arts. You know sort of like when Obama uses the National Endowment for the Arts funds for Propaganda, and how conservatives and their viewpoints are kept out of Hollywood productions.

Would it  have been  Sept 29,1933 when Jews (who in Germany were portrayed as a class of rich, greedy business owners and bankers)  had their right to own land  taken from them , followed in subsequent years by gold and silver, businesses, homes, and all other forms of wealth? Sort of like what Obama wants to do to violate every American's  right to property.

Would it have been July 6, 1938  when Nazis prohibited Jews from trading and providing a variety of specified commercial services.- Sort of like when Obama used political preferences to decide who would get Obamacare waivers, and which GM Dealerships would be shut down, and unions being bailedout to the exclusion of the rightful bondholders, and the placement of cronies into positions of power in various banks and other corporations.

Would it have been November 9/10, 1938 , the   Kristallnacht - The Night of Broken Glass,  The night they confiscated the firearms of German citizens? Like Obama is working behinds the scenes to do, possibly using a UN treaty?

Would it  have been in 1939 when Jews  had their right to life taken from them in a systematic attempt to exterminate them? Like the Democrats now propose denying the right to life even to those citizens fully grown, and relishing the thought of exterminating those who don't agree with them

Would it have been November 23, 1939 when the Nazis required Yellow stars to be worn by Polish Jews over age 10. Sort of like when Liberals call for branding of Global Warming Deniers.

Or would it have been even later after the death tolls really mounted?

• You Might be a traitor if your loyalty to Obama exceeds your loyalty to the Constitution
• You might be a Traitor if you consider yourself a "Citizen of the World"  more than a Citizen of the United States
• You might be a Traitor if you feel you must apologize for being an American instead of being proud of it
• You might be a traitor if the only thing “American” about you is your geographic location
• You might be a traitor if your loyalty to a certain political party, foreign country, race, gender or sexual orientation trumps your loyalty to the Constitution
• You might be a traitor if you think all other cultures must be respected, but feel anyone displaying a sense of American patriotism and holding American values should be persecuted and censored.
• You might be a traitor if you can’t tell the difference between a foreigner who entered the country legally, and a criminal who did not, and call the people who can tell the difference “racists”
• You might be a Traitor if you advocate Ignoring the Constitution and your neighbor’s inalienable rights in order to fund your personal pet causes and force others to live and serve according to your personal moral code
• You might be a traitor if you feel free to ignore portions of the Constitution because it was written by slave owning white men a long time ago.
• You might be a traitor if you are more likely to quote Marx, Mao, or Stalin than a Founding Father.
• You might be a traitor if you think its logical that the founders created a government based upon  the consent of the governed,  and then planned to use a process that would allow the government to “evolve” without that consent.
• You might be a traitor if you think twisting the words from their original meanings, and taking phrases out of context is the proper method of interpreting our Civil Contract  
• You might be a traitor if you think it would be cool  if we made Obama a dictator "for a few years"
• You might be a traitor if you think passing a bill without having read it counts as “representation” 
• You might be a traitor if you think the government is a day care for adults who act like children , rather than an institution for protecting the rights of adults who take care of themselves
• You might be a traitor if your definition of freedom includes the freedom to quit your real job and  pursue your  most beloved hobbies, by entitling yourself to the labor of others.
• You might be a traitor if you believe the government can decide how much happiness your neighbors are allowed to pursue
• You might be a traitor if you think your “rights” include using government force to decide what rights it is "safe" to let others have.
• You might be a traitor if you think freedom is what people have left over after the government is done making demands of them on your behalf
• You might be a traitor if you think lowering taxes has the effect of  giving money to people , instead of letting them keep what they earned
• You might be a traitor if you think your fellow citizens owe you something, and the government is there to forcefully bully them into providing it

• Do you believe the Democrats in power now believe that Government power is limited? If so, by what?
• Do you believe that most Democrats interpret the "Welfare Clause" to mean that they may do anything they feel is in the "general welfare" of the United States or any individual citizen thereof? Do you agree with that interpretation?
• If the "Welfare Clause" does entitle the Federal government to do anything in the "general welfare", why did the founders include a list of enumerated powers that are all clearly in "the general Welfare?   Isn't that redundant?
• If the "Welfare Clause" does entitle the Federal government to do anything in the "general welfare",  list, specifically, the powers and rights reserved to the people and the states by the 10th Amendment?
• Were the founders silent on the meaning of the Welfare Clause? If not, what did they say it meant?
• What meaning, if any, do you feel the people who ratified the constitution gave to that clause?
• When you sign a contract with another person, do you expect the words of that contract to take on new meanings as time passes, or do you expect them to adhered to according to the understanding under which the contract was signed, rather than any meaning that might be given to them when taken out of context of the entire document?
• Do you feel that the founders, who enacted a government whose legitimacy was based on the explicit consent of the governed, also gave that government the power to change and exercise new powers without the explicit consent of the governed?
• If the Welfare clause is interpreted to mean that the Federal Government may do anything it deems to be in the General Welfare, does that include abridging their inalienable rights without their consent acquired via amendment?
• If Jihadists were elected to government, could they use the "Welfare Clause" to justify the implementation of Sharia law, the subjugation of women and the forced conversion of all citizens to Islam, because they felt that doing so would be in the "general welfare"? Explain your answer.
• Name the year(s) in which the people gave their consent for Federal Government to exercise the powers exercised in Obamacare?
• Do you agree with Jefferson's idea, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that the purpose of the Government is to Protect the inalienable rights of its Citizens , and not  to promote "fairness", "Equality of Result", "Freedom from want" or "Freedom from Fear"?
• Do you feel that the inalienable rights of citizens can be protected while also providing  "fairness", "Equality of Result", "Freedom from want" or "Freedom from Fear"?  Explain.
• Do you agree with Jefferson's idea,  as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that the Consent of the Governed is what makes the use of Government power legitimate, and without that consent any powers exercised  are unjust?
• Is there such a thing as an illegitimate Tax or an Illegitimate use of government power? If so, how would we be able to identify such an abuse of power?
• Do you feel the Constitution grants the Federal government to power to tax certain individuals for the SOLE benefit of other individuals, with no service being performed for the Tax Payer or the Government? If so, cite the date the People of the United States gave their consent to such a power
• If the people never gave their consent to a power to redistribute wealth, is the use of such a power legitimate? Explain your answer.
• Are the inalienable  rights of any individual violated when the government is used against its intended purpose, as stated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, without  the consent of the people, as a bully to confiscate money from some and entitle others to it to satisfy one groups idea of "morality" or "justice"?
• Do you feel the following Statement is true or false. Explain your answer. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." -Alexis de Tocqueville
• Do you think the above quote has any relevance to any current government programs? Explain.
• If the government can tax as much as it wants and for any purpose, can it not be said to have a power to confiscate all of a man's labor without his consent? What term would you to describe that situation?
• If the government passes a taxbreak for the wealthy, is the government  "giving money to the rich" or is it failing to forcefully confiscate money from those who have earned it? Whose money is it? Why?
• If the law entitles one man to the labor of  another man without his consent, would it be fair to say that the man whose labor is so confiscated is a "slave" of the other man? If not, what term would you use?
• If the law allows one man to force another man to work to provide for his children without that man's consent, would it be fair to say that the man  whose labor is so confiscated is a "slave" of the other man? If not, what term would you use?
• If the law allows the government to force a citizen to care for another citizen without that man's consent, would it be fair to say that the man's whose labor is so confiscated is a "slave" of the government? If not, what term would you use?
• Will calling the act of redistributing wealth without the consent of the governed, "slavery",  "thievery", "indentured servitude", "involuntary entitlement" , or "for the common good" in any way change the nature of the act?
• Compare and contrast the institution of "slavery" with the act of redistributing wealth without the consent of the governed. How are they different? How are they similar?
• What does the following quote mean to you? Do you feel it is correct or incorrect  in its sentiments?  Explain. "That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge [Douglas] is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the [Black Man]*. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a [Black Man]*, why not another say it does not mean some other man?" -Abraham Lincoln
• When it is right to make one man toil and let another eat the fruits of it? Explain your answer
• Is it wrong or evil to forcefully confiscate the labor of a man because he decided to toil to benefit others who did not work as hard, or perhaps not at all?  Explain your answer?
• Is it right to deprive a man of his property because he is better at producing wealth and material goods than others around him? Explain your answer.
• Does using threats of violence to confiscate the fruits of one person's labor, and entitling another to the benefit of them,  violate the inalienable rights of either man? Explain your answer.
• Should hiring a thug to break into a  house, with the good intention of  funding personal cause or charity, be illegal?
• If the government was incapable of providing welfare, social security, or health care,  would Liberals have the moral right and obligation to break into their neighbor's houses and steal from them, at gunpoint,  the funds required to provide for such causes?
• If the government uses the threat of imprisonment to do the same, without the consent of the governed, it that legitimate use of government power? Explain.
• When this is done, how is it different than an individual hiring a thug?
• Should the minority be protected in their individual  rights from the tyranny of the majority? If so, should this only happen when the cause is co-incident with your own ideas of right and wrong?
• Does Might make Right? 
• Explain what is meant by  "the right of conscience"
• Explain what is meant by "the right to pursue happiness"
• Explain what is meant by "the right to liberty"
• When soldiers join the Military, do they swear an oath to defend the "standing government" or to they swear to defend the constitution? Why?
• When Congress is sworn in, do they swear an oath to defend the "standing government" or to they swear to defend the constitution? Why?  
• When the President is sworn in does he  swear an oath to defend the "standing government" or to he swear to defend the constitution? Why?
• When a Supreme Court Justice is sworn in,  does he  swear an oath to defend the "standing government" or  does he   swear to defend the constitution? Why?
• What does "defending the Constitution" Mean?
• If a person declares they have the right to violently interfere with others without their consent, violate the inalienable rights of others  and ignore the constitution and its procedures and limits  for running the republic, are they in rebellion against the Constitution? Explain. Would it be fair to call such a person a "traitor"?
• What is your reaction to the following quote? Do you feel it is true or false? Explain. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. - C.S. Lewis"
• Do you think of your fellow men as domestic animals who should be under your care, guidance and protection? If so, why do you feel you are qualified for such role?  Would Jihadists and Nazis also be qualified? If not, how could one distinguish when a person's idea of the "common good"  for such animals should be used or discarded?
• * N*gro is apparently a "bad word" according to Town Hall's censor.  Do you feel that certain words should be restricted in their use if they violate your idea of polite speech? 
• Does your idea of polite speech extend to your own words, or are those rules onlt for those who say things you don't want to hear? Explain
• Do you feel the current Democrats in Congress and the Presidency are following your idea of civility when they call thier political opposition names like "nazi", "teabagger" and "terrorist"?  Do you feel that calls for civility from such people are hypocritical in any way? Explain.  
  

Our Nation has become ideologically divided along lines that I do not believe are reconcilable. We appear to have one Group that largely believes in the Ethics and Principles of our Founding Fathers, and another who largely opposes them.
The Former Group, which I will refer to as the “Tea Party”, appears to  believe:

* Individuals have Inalienable Rights that NO GOVERNMENT may infringe upon without their consent. A Right is a restriction on Government Power

* That the Constitution is only Valid when taken as an expression of that Consent, and therefore its ORIGINAL MEANING as understood by the people is paramount in determining the laws under which we live.  It was a contract between the people to form a government, with limited powers, with all other powers being reserved to the people or to the States. A process for Amendment was provided for changes to the contract, and amendment is the only VALID means of changing its meaning, because it is the only method which preserves the explicit consent of the people.

* the role of Government is to prevent individuals from doing demonstrable harm to each other through the violation of an individual's inalienable rights, and administering institutions set up for the general welfare and with the people's express consent. Fundamentally the Government’s goal is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens from attack from either within or without. 

* It is the individual’s responsibility to pursue and ensure his own happiness in accord with his abilities, and his right to decide between right and wrong and when, if and how to contribute to the welfare of his fellow man.

The Latter Group, which I will refer to as the “Coffee Party”, appears to believe:

* The Government has the right to suspend or modify the Rights of individuals without resort to Amendment, and can do so purely through the legislative process. In effect this means that personal liberty is what you have left over after a simple majority have made their demands upon you. A Right is a benefit given to all or some using the confiscated labors of others. 

* The Constitution is open to modification and interpretation without a need to obtain the express consent of the people.

* The Primary role of government isn't merely to protect, but to ensure its citizens "do the right thing" as determined by a simple majority, and to correct imbalances perceived by the simple majority to be unfair.  In short, to take care of its citizens as a farmer maintains the animals on his farm - ensuring each receives food, health care, sand shelter, making use of animals most suited for work to do that work, and using the proceeds to care for all.

* Responsibility for the care of any individual who either cannot or will not provide for  themselves falls to the community, who will then use the force of government to indenture certain individuals to entitle the fruits of their labor to those who cannot or will not care for themselves.

The two groups appear to have fundamentally different and I believe irreconcilable ideas of freedom, equality, property rights, personal responsibility and the role of government. (I am sure that many will object to the way and terms in which I have described and defined the differences, and I respectfully ask that rather than complain about terms, they offer definitions and terms of their own, and/or explain HOW and WHY they feel mine are deficient)

Thus we have a battle between two seemingly irreconcilable worldviews, and to make matters worse, this ideological battle is not being fought in each individual state, but at the Federal Level, in a game of winner takes all.

The Federal Government was originally formed to handle Federal issues. It was not originally granted the power by the people to run any sort of Social Program. Any perusal of the Debates both public, and private over the Welfare clause will reveal that many opposed ratification because the Welfare clause would be used to justify the Government doing anything that might be construed, however, tangentially, as in the public welfare.  Proponents of the Constitution argued that such an interpretation would nullify the entire purpose of the system, rendering it meaningless. Not satisfied with that bulwark, the people passed the 10th Amendment making the restriction on the Federal powers very explicit.

 If the battle over Welfare, Health Care, Social Security, Medicare etc were fought at the individual State level, individuals could vote with their feet, and much of this conflict would be reserved to individual States. Alas, we are not in a situation where the Federal Government has grown in power such that these issues must be contested at the national level. Regardless of if you see that growth in power as Constitutional or not, the size and power of the Federal Government allows large Private Corporate interests and individual politicians wider opportunities for graft.  A Corporation could do nothing to interfere with the decisions of a Government that does not have the power to make those decisions, and 50 Individual State Governments would certainly be more difficult to infiltrate and corrupt than one large one far removed from local accountability and scrutiny. This is a large part of the reason the Founders wanted a limited National Government (though even they argued over those limits) - because no government can be trusted to preserve individual liberty - even one based on Democratic principles.

I am afraid Geographic Separation of the two ideologies, according to the Federal Model would be the best one available.  Unfortunately, the latter ideological model of the Coffee Party requires the individual rights of those with the abilities to be sacrificed to the “greater good”, and this usually causes those individuals to seek societies based on the Tea Party Model.  This is why Societies like Cuba and the Soviet Union have sought to prevent their most able citizens from voting with their feet.  Individual States would not be able to use such draconian measures, and I believe this is much of the motivation behind the desire of the Coffee Party to make Progressive issues, Federal issues.

Fundamentally, those who subscribe to the ideology of the Tea Party, feel bullied by their progressive neighbors who elect officials who then proceed to abuse and exceed the powers granted in our mutual contract with our neighbors, with the purpose of forcefully  indenturing  them into the service of  their neighbor’s moral  code. This use of government violates their right to pursue happiness through the fruits of their own labor and their Right conscience is violated by forcing them into supporting programs they find morally reprehensible, and to which the people never gave their explicit consent.

A person who subscribes to the (progressive) ideals of the Coffee Party, finds nothing wrong in their actions. They feel that a simple majority is sufficient to deprive individuals of their inalienable rights, and that the Constitution as it stands and is interpreted today is legitimate without the requirement of express consent. As a result they see no reason to desist in the use of Government Force against their neighbors in the pursuit of their goals.

A simple solution would be to allowing those who do not wish to take part in the Social and Moral programs offered by Progressive Proponents via the force of Government, to make a decision to not participate in them and not to fund them. The Amish already have such an option with regards to Social Security, and instead rely upon the goodwill of their family, friends, neighbor and church to care for them in old age. However, most progressives seem unwilling to allow this sort of freedom to individuals, presumably for the same reason that most communist countries try to prevent their most productive citizens from leaving. Progressive seem unwilling to "Live and Let Live" and seem bent on using government power to make some people live for the benefit of others and the self-satisfaction of those who thing they can determine the "common good"

“At the heart of the conservative misunderstanding of liberty is the presumption that government and individual freedom are fundamentally at odds. “

Mr. Galston sets up a convenient straw man and knocks him down. Conservatives DO NOT believe Government (as a concept) is at odds with Individual Freedom, IF that Government’s primary purpose and actual actions are TO PRESERVE IT. Contrary to Galston's assertion below, Freedom does exist in the abstract. Freedom means being able to determine and follow your own course unimpeded by forceful and violent interference from others. Progress is a government that succeeds in reducing the forceful interference of others, and increasing the choices that are available to individuals.  

Galston agrees: ” There is no inherent contradiction between progress and liberty. Simply put, removing issues from the political agenda—placing them beyond dispute—often promotes liberty. After political contestation and a bloody war, we decided that slavery was impermissible, and we reordered our laws and institutions accordingly. A century later, we made a parallel decision about racial discrimination, with similar consequences.”

The examples cited both represented increased liberty for individuals and a reduction in the violent interference with their actions. If those are examples of progress and liberty , how can the use of Government to LIMIT the CHOICES of INDIVIDUALS and the USE OF FORCE to compel certain actions ALSO be considered progress ? Obamacare (and many other Liberal programs)  mandates the government violently interfere with individuals, the antithesis of what Galston presents here as "progress". Galston’s disingenuous and deliberate misuse of the term so defined  in  support of such programs  is simply Orwellian.

Galston goes on to explain that “At the heart of any liberal understanding of freedom is the proposition that public power can advance freedom as well as undermine it. In the real world, there is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There are only specific freedoms, which differ in their conditions and consequences. FDR famously enumerated four such freedoms, dividing them into two pairs: freedom of speech and worship; freedom from want and fear. The first pair had long been recognized and enshrined in the Constitution. The second were a new formulation, and Roosevelt made them concrete when he signed Social Security into law, justifying it as a way of promoting freedom from want: "We have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family ... against poverty-ridden old age." Three years later, he declared that Social Security payments will "furnish that minimum necessary to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want."

If  we are talking about freedom, one of the paramount freedoms is the right to live under a government of one’s own choosing that exercises powers granted  by the People’s consent – a Freedom Mr. Galston thinks should be denied whenever the “exigencies of the moment” allow them to impose an enduring tyrannical usurpation as a legacy. Galston decides to redefine the term “liberty”  into a “specific” grants of license provided to individuals by the Federal Government, in complete contradiction to the text of the 10^th Amendment and the Declaration of Independence which claims all men are granted by their creator certain inalienable rights. Instead Galston equates rights that were ratified by the people, through a process of their own consent, with those pronounced by fiat by a President during a speech, claiming that FDRs bald faced usurpation of power is legitimate because  the Government must be “adequate to the exigencies of the moment” – even after  the conditions of those moments that may have legitimatized TEMPORARY actions have long since passed. After all, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

The  Bill of Rights restricts the govrnment from  interfering with the Freedom of Speech ,  Freedom of Worship, both concepts closely linked to the Right of Conscience. They are  all RESTRICTIONS on GOVERNMENT POWER. Yet Galston says these do not conflict with rights that MANDATE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO and therefore must COMPEL the People to support, even if such compulsion violates the Right of Conscience or other inalienable rights granted by our Creator. Apparently, to Galston , Freedom is what you have left over after others have made their demands.  

Galston asks, “if what we really have is a dispute between two competing understandings of liberty—which should we prefer?”

 Obviously some people prefer one, and some the other. America’s Constitution and Traditions are obviously based on the broader, more abstract version of liberty in which individual decision making and responsibility are protected by government, while  most Socialist and Communist Countries are based on Galston’s  “Modern logic of Liberty” in which individuals are granted certain freedoms and privileges by a government devoted to protecting the common good through the forced sacrifice of certain individuals . Mr. Galston, and every other liberal in America, is of course free to vote with their feet, though,  ironically,  that is  an ability denied to many people in the  many of the countries which adhere to Mr. Galston’s definition of "liberty". Instead Mr. Galston and his kind wish to remain in America, and settle permanently the question of which type of freedom will be allowed to reign in this world, by denying the American people the freedom to choose their own form of government.  This, of course, they would see as “Progress”

Galston claims “those who have experienced the freedoms made possible by the New Deal are not so dismissive. It is often observed, rightly, that Social Security has virtually eliminated poverty among the elderly. But this noble achievement has an equally profound flip side. Throughout human history, those who reached the age where they could no longer work have typically depended on their children or on charity for their basic subsistence. Social Security broke this age-old dependency by giving the elderly a minimum degree of economic self-sufficiency, expanding their range of effective control over the conditions of their post-retirement years.”

White Slave Holders in the Confederate South also enjoyed “economic self-sufficiency” through the forced labor of others. Fundamentally, the left has never rejected the idea of slavery. Like those White Slave Masters, Liberals wish to provide  their slaves with a job, and decide what amount of each  slave’s labor will be returned to  them in the form of Housing, clothing, food, medical care or other benefits, rewarding house slaves with more freedom and lighter duties and getting as much as they can out of those with the best abilities.  For liberals the problem with the institution of slavery was never the use of force to enslave men, but rather the intent of the enslavers:  Slave Owners in the South owned slaves for their own profit, liberals wish to enslave others to "help" them.  Liberals see no ethical probelm with using the government to forcefully indenture some, for the benefit of the whole, toact as a benevolent Slave Master who will determine how much of our own effort it would be "fair" to allow us tokeep and how much freedom we each should be allowed to enjoy.  

Galston claims  “ when the Tea Partiers complain that a government health insurance mandate invades their liberty, they reveal a defective understanding of the logic of liberty in a modern society. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance could try to resolve the contradiction by signing a document foreswearing all reliance on health care they didn’t pay for themselves. But, because our medical norms don’t permit us to leave injured accident victims at the side of the road, such a document couldn’t be enforced.”

Who is establishing these “medical Norms?” Is it the Doctors? If so, why is the decision of a Doctor to provide Charity to someone who has acted irresponsibly become harmful to everyone else? If a doctor providing charity to others causes harm, why not make it illegal for that doctor to provide Charity? In many cases it is the opposite, and the Government has forced Doctors Provide such "Charity" – denying them the right of Conscience – and effectively mandating that a Doctor cannot “irresponsibly” refuse to take care of someone who cannot repay the services rendered.  Once having denied doctors thier inalienable rights, Galston then uses his “modern logic of liberty”  to justify denying the general population thier rights by claiming the government must now outlaw the irresponsible behavior  of not carrying insurance, because the government has already forced Doctors to treat the uninsured. Some versions of Obamacare have gone  further and mandated that everyone must contribute to the killing of unborn children, which, in over 95% of the cases, is an elective procedure used as a form of Birth control. After all, given the current medical practices, it’s the only “practical” solution. Of cours, to a liberal, its only “practical “ to deal with the “modern crisis”  by forcing  people to make what Liberal’s consider to be the right, the responsible or the best decisions, and to support what they feel to be the correct  programs and institutions.  Just as the King of England felt it was “practical” to deal with his decision to break with the Catholic Church by mandating individuals  attend and  support the Anglican Church. Just  as Slave Masters felt slavery was  “practical” because it could care for blacks who  obviously couldn’t deal with the responsibility of being Free and taking care of themselves.  

In the end Galston is trying to obfuscate the real Liberal version of  Freedom – The freedom to Force “the community” to free others from their burden of  personal decision making and individual responsibility  for the consequences  of those decisions. Or, if you prefer, the Freedom to make some pay for the irresponsible actions of others and the Freedom to make some  behave as others think they should.