“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.   

1) Do You think Barak Obama is a U.S. Citizen?

I believe that until President Obama is proven to be unqualified for his position in a Court of Law, he is the President of the United States of America. However, I do find it ironic that a man who claimed his administration would be transparent has made it a first order of business to seal his public records from view, and I sympathize with those who want the President to live up to his promises.  I must ask, why does Obama simply not open his public records and allow everyone to see for themselves that he is a U.S. Citizen?

2) Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?

I believe that the people who ratified the 10^th amendment were serious in their intent that it should limit Federal power to only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and that it is absurd to suggest that the founders of our Nation believed the Constitution they ratified granted a blanket power to regulate every form of production, including crops grown on private land for private consumption. Why do Democrats feel it is acceptable to ignore the 10^th Amendment and change the meaning of our Constitution, our fundamental social contract with each other, without the consent of the Governed?

3) Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?

First, I think we need to understand what Socialism is. Socialism to me means following the teachings of Karl Marx and his philosophy of “from each according to their ability, to each according to his need.” Socialism is the use of Government to forcefully confiscate what some have produced in order to give it to others based on their perceived need. Do these programs meet that criteria? Perhaps. However, such distinctions are irrelevant in determining if they should have been enacted in the first place.

 The Federal Government is able to run such programs because they are considered income taxes  - not, as is commonly assumed, “insurance”. The Federal Court system has found there is no liability or contract in place that requires the government to pay claims. These  programs are massive and fraudulent Ponzi schemes that are about to become insolvent, and make the crimes Bernie Madoff  look insignificant in comparison.  The money currently paid to the programs is spent the second it is received, and the money paid out will soon be forcefully confiscated from your children – who have no hope of ever getting a dime.  I must ask you, If Social Security and Medicare are such good programs, why is participation in them Mandatory and why would so many workers opt out if given a chance? 

Do you think President Obama is a socialist?

Given my Prior definition of Socialism, and the President's own words that he “wishes to spread the wealth”, along with the Presidential budget  which complains about wealth inequities which the Founding Fathers saw as the inevitable consequence of freedom. Simply put, the President feels that everyone’s production belongs to the Government, to be redistributed as those in power see fit - to make sure that everyone gets a "Fair Share" of someone else's producutive ability. Therefore “Tax cuts” are seen by Obama  giving  money to people, rather than allowing them to keep what they have earned. However, if you do not feel Obama is a Socialist, perhaps you can tell me, how does one give a Federal tax cut to 95% of American Families when only 52% of them pay Federal Taxes?   

Do you think America should return to a gold standard?”

The divide in America is not caused by an honest disagreement over a particular policy or even ideology. In a honest disagreement both sides want to find the truth, however elusive, and demonstrate it to the other. The Liberals in our society, however, are completely and totally disinterested in seeking the truth – they merely seek to justify the force and violence they impose on others as the seek to transfer the consequences of  their own irresponsible acts.  As such they are unfit to live in our society because ANY RESPONSIBLE VOTER SHOULD CARE AND MUST CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.   Liberals would far rather be happy than right, and therefore think that  OTHERS SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR IRRESPONSIBILITY. In Fact, Liberals believe they have a RIGHT TO MAKE OTHERS PAY. 

The vital role of consent in the structure of a just government is one of the most powerful ideas ever advanced by the human race. On the other hand, the belief that consent can be manufactured by democratic majorities is one of the most cherished illusions of activist government. The dissent of a minority is not rendered irrelevant by victory in a popular vote… but the health-care debate in the Senate proceeds on the assumption that victory in a parliamentary struggle between a hundred elected officials will compel the consent of the millions of citizens – now a sizable majority of the population, based on the latest polls – who strenuously object to ObamaCare. If Senate Democrats win this debate, huge amounts of your liberty will be destroyed, and vast sums of money will be seized from taxpayers… and you will not be allowed to object. Any attempt to withhold your consent from this economy-shattering, life-changing radical legislation will end with you sitting in a prison cell.

The consent of the governed cannot be expressed solely through a semi-annual vote for elected representatives. It can only be respected by placing strict limits on what those representatives can vote for. Some would argue that requiring the consent of the entire population to authorize massive government programs would effectively render those programs impossible, because 100% agreement is virtually impossible to achieve. Exactly. The entire apparatus of socialist government is a Constitutional violation that would never receive the total support of those who are controlled by its regulations, or compelled to pay for its agenda. For this reason, its agenda should never even reach the serious discussion stage, never mind legislative implementation.

Americans concerned about the size of their government should not be forced into a permanent defensive posture against an endless series of aggressive initiatives. If the needs and desires of some can transcend the liberty of others, then liberty itself is a meaningless concept. Freedom is not what you have left after everyone else is finished making demands of you. The need for your consent is not respected when your only hope of withholding it lies in historic midterm electoral victories and the rapid construction of huge Congressional majorities. The patriots who declared their independence from England perceived an essential truth about the nature of just government, which we have become almost afraid to contemplate.

The tent we need looks like this:

• Those in the tent  believe in Personal Freedom and agree to take on the Personal Responsibility to take care of themselves that goes with it
• Those in the tent  believe each person has a right to keep the fruits of their labor, effort and risk-taking
• Those in the tent believe equality of outcome is impossible when individuals are given the personal freedom to do their best.
• Those in the equality of outcome is impossible when individuals are given the personal freedom to do their best.
• Those in the tent  believe in Laws that treat each individual according to the same Standards and Rules
• Those in the tent  believe in the Right of Conscience and do not believe the Federal  government should not be defining the moral responsibility of its Citizens
• Those in the tent believe the Government is the Creation of and the Servant of the people, limited in power by the Original Meaning of the Contract that created it - The Constitution, and that the only legitimate method of changing it is via the Amendment Process.
• Those in the tent  believe the all Powers not delegated to the Federal Government reside with the States or the People
• Those in the tent believe a “Right” is a restriction on Government Power
• Those in the tent believe that people should be free to use their time, talents, and treasure to engage in personal or volunteer group acts of charity to benefit others without government coercion or restriction.*

In short, if you believe in the Principles, Values and Government the Founders envisioned you are an American, and you belong in the tent. If an American tent is not big enough for you, you belong with with the the Democratic Party who have principles and beliefs which are diametrically opposed in action and deed to all of the above.

Essentially the iPhone is safe from the Droid because most iPhone users are liberals. They are people who WANT a Mommy and Daddy watching over them. iPhone developers  must navigate a Byzantine approval process that is so bad, that some even stoop to using Microsoft's .NET to get things done.  Apple tests and approves every application offered on the iPhone to make sure they all play nice together. This of course ensures the phone will deliver the beautiful and slick  user experience Apple has decided its users will have. The iPhone is a good example of the "one-size-fits all" top-down mentality of liberals.  If you want a different experience from what your masters thinks you SHOULD have and SHOULD want, you are just SOL.  The lowercase "i" in iPhone doesn't occur by accident. The individual just isn't as important, and the "Phone" takes precedence. Many iPhone and Mac  users come near to worshipping Apple and their products,  going so far as to genuflect when they turn on a Apple device, ensure they face San Jose 3 times a day to give thanks for their iLife and to pray for the saving of the pagans who do not yet have one.

In contrast, Verizon's Droid in Particular, and the Android OS in general are created for a different set of users who are interested in an I-Phone rather than a iPhone. They are interested in a "MY LIFE", rather than an iLife. Open Development is a form of freedom that comes with its own attendant problems: some applications might conflict, the interface will be bit rough around the edges, and you have to look out for and solve these difficulties yourself.   I-Phone users will sit down and write applications that fit them, break the new ground they want to explore , and they don't need nor want a Master approving what they can and can't do.

The  Droid I-Phone  is not an iPhone killer because  those who own an iPhone are NOT INTERESTED in the FREEDOM provided by an open development device.  Likewise, those same people are NOT INTERESTED in the freedom provided by our Constitution and our Founding Principles. They religiously worship the iPhone and feel justified in trying to force everyone to have an iLife. Liberals wish to control your Life Experience to meet THIER tastes and ideas of what people <SHOULD> want- be it in the type of insurance you buy, the food you eat, what fuels you will use, what you may wear, what you may say, and what opinions you may hold.  They seek that safe, integrated experience where we all play nice with each other, look good together, and each person's life  is approved and sanctioned by a central authority. 

In a perfect world, we would all be able to choose if we want an iLife or a My-Life, and the people who are not happy with the I-Country  the Founders created would move to an iCountry in Europe or elsewhere. But they won't.  iPhone users are engaged in a Holy Crusade to create an iWorld and in that world there is no room for a capital I.

Of course, liberals, who claim to speak for that Mob , say if the wealthy pay protection money to them, they can prevent the Mob of “Have-Nots” from arriving. This is really just the difference between organized crime, and the random acts of petty thieves. Organized Crime Syndicates systematically “shake down” their targets, threatening them with violent crime if they don't comply with their demands. With this argument, Liberals are really just suggesting that the Government become the principle agent of force in an organized crime ring, shaking down the productive, responsible citizens and handing out “favors” in return for promising to do a “favor” at the polls. Our governments were originally instituted to prevent Crime and protect property, not to facilitate its theft and aid in finding supplicants to help grow the criminal enterprise. Liberals advocate the use of criminal force, disguised as the legitimate operation of a government collecting taxes, as the means of collecting the protection money, and ironically call those who object “selfish.” A criminal operation cannot be legitimized by claiming a majority voted for it, when the voters who did were paid to do so from the profits of the ring. The Democratic Party is the Party of the Mafia, and that is the Mob we should be worried about - the petty thieves can wait.