is most American conflict inherently intra-racial

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

Not horribly written, tho it could be more clearly organized to make clear whether what was meant was:
   ♦   The conflict surrounds freedom and the scarce resources of the public treasury.
  or
   ♦   The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and of freedom.

One of the differences between reactionaries and progressives is reactionaries usually view freedom as something that not everyone can have while progressives generally view freedom as something that truly can be enjoyed by all.  Hence, krazen likely did mean the latter, but only he can say for certain.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

Not horribly written, tho it could be more clearly organized to make clear whether what was meant was:
   ♦   The conflict surrounds freedom and the scarce resources of the public treasury.
  or
   ♦   The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and of freedom.

One of the differences between reactionaries and progressives is reactionaries usually view freedom as something that not everyone can have while progressives generally view freedom as something that truly can be enjoyed by all.  Hence, krazen likely did mean the latter, but only he can say for certain.

A sentence with that level of ambiguity is, in a case like this, horribly written by my standards, because while the former possibility for what he meant there is a reasonable albeit in my opinion misguided conservative position, the latter is an absolutely disgusting sentiment and one of the relatively few things on which I expect I'll never even be able to agree to disagree with this particular kind of reactionary. I know that most conservatives don't believe that freedom in the full sense of the word as defined by progressives, or people who subscribe to the idea of 'positive rights' in general, can or should be enjoyed by everyone at once, and I accept that, but I highly doubt that that's how krazen conceptualizes or uses that word.

Why bring in positive rights?  Even if one thinks of rights only in the negative sense, it is still possible to conceive of them not being universally available by having a government so impotent that government is unable to prevent others from doing to you what you are afraid government will do to you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and freedom.

This is horribly written as an English sentence.

Not horribly written, tho it could be more clearly organized to make clear whether what was meant was:
   ♦   The conflict surrounds freedom and the scarce resources of the public treasury.
  or
   ♦   The conflict surrounds the scarce resources of the public treasury and of freedom.

One of the differences between reactionaries and progressives is reactionaries usually view freedom as something that not everyone can have while progressives generally view freedom as something that truly can be enjoyed by all.  Hence, krazen likely did mean the latter, but only he can say for certain.

What a interesting theory. The modern progressive subscribes to this standard.

Anakin: "We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem.  Agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and do it."
Padme: "That's exactly what they do, the trouble is that people don't always agree."
Anakin: "Then they should be made to."
Padme: "By whom?  Who's going to make them?"
Anakin: "I don't know.  Someone."
Padme: "You?"
Anakin: "Of course not me!"
Padme: "Then someone...?"
Anakin: "Someone wise."
Padme: "That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me."
Anakin: "Well... if it works..."

I suspect you get freedom in accordance with their definition of freedom. It's very cute.

Have you been speaking with jmfcst off the forum?  He was big on movie quotes express his views, but at least he usually gave ones relevant to the topic at hand.  Besides, Chancellor Palpatine was definitely a reactionary and not a progressive, so not only is your quote irrelevant to the subject of whether freedom is a scarce resource, your commentary on it is completely wrong.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest: I mentioned positive rights because I can imagine a system of thought in which what are thought of as positive rights shouldn't be granted to everyone as something other than horrifying, whereas systems of thought in which the government shouldn't even be allowed to make sure everybody has, at least in theory, exercise of more or less the same negative rights just strike me as abominable (this isn't to say that I think that people who believe that are automatically awful people in general, but I'm far less willing to entertain their ideas about politics and related subjects). That's the distinction that I was trying to make, not that one is somehow more theoretically possible than the other. Sorry for the confusion.

Even with a government that tries its best to extend negative rights as much as possible, those rights will occasionally come into conflict unless it does so by being so weak as to be more anarchy than archy, in which case those negative rights can be violated by private actors.