The only point where I would disagree with you is on the nature of liberty and rights. Liberty, at least as we understand it, the way that it was understood by the founding fathers, in the classically liberal sense, is derived from reason and based upon the maximization of individual freedom. Individual freedom is secured by rights, and governments are established for the purpose of securing those rights. Rights in this sense are derived from reason and must adhere to the logical construct of compossibility in order to be consistent and valid. They imply obligations, but the hugely important distinction must be made between negative and positive obligations. Rights, as our founding fathers understood them, implied negative obligations – obligations to NOT perform an action that would violate the rights of another, not obligations TO perform an action for the benefit of another. Governments are created by people in order to ensure that their rights, as so defined, are not violated by others, be they foreign or domestic. Rights are not favors bestowed upon people by their governments, nor constructs of tradition bestowed upon successive generations within any one culture. Rights and liberty are "natural" or "universal" in that they are derivatives of a universal human ability – reason. And therefore, they are possible anywhere that individuals in possession of reason exist.

I don't disagree with you that cost is not or should not be the prevailing 'conservative' consideration. However, cost is the basis on which it is being sold to the American public, or at least that segment of the public that does not recognize and accept this as a means for advancing socialist dominance. Therefore, preaching liberty is merely preaching to the conservative-choir just as preaching socialism is preaching to the socialist-choir. If we are to defeat them, we must do so both with their arguments as well as our own. The battlefield reduces to the line of 'costs'; the common ground of those indifferent to either ideology. So, whether it is our prefered battleground (the one with which we are most comfortable) or not is moot. We must fight this where we are uncomfortable as well as comfortable. More than this, if we are to both win and sustain the victory, we must make it 'our' ground more than theirs, as well as a safe harbor for liberty. We do not always get to choose the ground, but we must be ready to take and hold the ground – whatevery ground that may be.

As Clauswitz reminds us, the enemy does not just wait for us to make our next move. He has tactics and stratagems of his own that we must be ready to counteract. If all you will fight is a set-piece you prefer, you will surely lose.

An impassioned defense: And while I agree that there would follow an almost unimaginable loss of liberty under either the House or Senate proposals for Health Care in this country; I believe the battle lines are being drawn over "the pursuit of happiness" portion of the Declaration of Independence.

There can be no doubt that health care legislation, in its present forms, will fundamentally and forever alter the contract between government and the American Citizen. This is exactly why the progressive democrat party is 'hell-bent' on passing this legislation; even in the face of the vocal opposition of a clear majority of the country.

Congressmen and Senators continue down this path despite most of them knowing it could cost them their positions. The safe ones; the Pelosi's, the Schumer's, and the Durbin's know their party will suffer for this; yet they continue. Why?

They realize that political majorities ebb and rise across the years, but veto proof majorities seldom happen. This is their one opportunity to permanently change the political landscape. For over two hundred years, the Declaration of Independence has promised; "…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Declaration promises the people these basic rights, but progressives have perverted this phrase: For while the Declaration promises our unalienable right to pursue Happiness, it is the progressive democrat party that has promised each individual the actual achievement of 'happiness' under their gentle tutelage.

Health care is being sold to the public as an individual right. Health care is really a right of the state. A government that pays for your health care has legitimate reason to control literally every aspect of your behavior. There is not one portion of your life that cannot be regulated. All these subsequent regulations will be 'for your own good' or 'for the sake of the children', but the real reason for these resulting regulations will ultimately be the same as the original reason to pass health care, and that is the continuation of the state.

If you doubt, for one minute, the real reason behind health care legislation and why the progressive democrat party is willing to sacrifice so many of its members to achieve it; just look at public education.

The federal government contributes federal dollars to public education. Federal contributions amount to an average of 7% of any public school district's annual budget. Federal control over these facilities and the curriculum is ubiquitous for that measly seven cents. If they desire that amount of control for seven cents; exactly how much control do you believe they will want over your life in return for paying 100% of the cost of your health care?

Generations of perverting public education by calling indoctrination study has wielded an electorate that will buy into literally any 'sound bite'. Once they've passed health care; they will sell the obligation to begin regulating every aspect of every person's life; from if you are even allowed to be born, to where you live, how you live, how much energy you consume, how much and what types of foods you consume, how you work, how you recreate, what types of medical procedures you recieve, and how long you live. Your life will constantly be subject to a cost/benefit calculation as to exactly how much the state should invest, weighed against what the state can expect to gain from you in return. Once that calculation begins to show a diminishing 'return-on-investment' you can expect to be terminated. Not actively, at first. They'll just 'withhold' required support. But there will come a time when people will be expected to 'expire' so future generations of people can make their contributions to the all powerful state.

This is not an individual right; it is a 'state' right.