From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: What is a Conservative?
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:10:33 GMT

phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

>In article <1992Nov2.152813.21375@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>Conservatives believe in limited government and the empowerment of the 
>>individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke) to allow people
>>the freedom to seek their own happiness rather than to stand in a line
>>at a federal office waiting to receive what the liberals have deemed as
>>todays portion of happiness.

Pretty good.

>Unfortunately, there seem to be VERY FEW true conservatives around.  Rush is
>definitely NOT one.

>A True Conservative (tm) would be against the RICO seizure statutes, against
>keeping drugs illegal, against keeping prostitution illegal, against making
>abortion illegal, against forced prayer in schools, etc., etc., etc.

You don't know what your talking about.  First there is a 'fiscal conservative'
and they are normally found within a group of 'political conservatives'.
You are confusing conservative with Libertarian (I will bet lunch you
voted for Marrou/Lord...).  

A political conservative (of which I am one, and so is Rush), believes
that the role of government should be limited to the physical protection
of INNOCENT people.  That means that we need an Army (or some form
of publicly funded military), a police force, and an education system
that provides that everyone be given a 'chance' to succeed.

Where your definition falls apart is in who you veiw as 'innocent',
or if you even have that in your definition.

	Abortion  - Rush and I both see the unborn child as innocent,
	            and it is HIS/HER rights that concern us (not the
		    mother, who most likely got herself into that 
	 	    situation (most conservatives allow for the 
		    exceptions).

	Drug Use  - The M/L (Libertarian) argument is that if we
		    legalize drugs then 'drug violence' will quit and
		    they always use prohibition as an example..I will
		    take on that one...

Since prohibition was uplifted, yes...noone is mowed down with a tommy
gun over booze, BUT let's look at WHO is getting mowed down.  In
the years of prohibition, smugglers and cops primarily are the victims,
and since legalization we have turned drinking (and the accidents that
occur as a result) to the NUMBER ONE KILLER of INNOCENT people in the
U.S.  If you are only talking about machine guns, then yes..legalizing
booze fixed that (as would drugs), but it is easily arguable that 
the actual deaths have skyrocketed, and the biggest group impacted
is innocent people that all these legally drunk (although maybe illegally
driving) people kill.  Remember that we are talking about a DRUG that
has the sole purpose of screwing up your mind, who can blame a legally
drunk person for no longer having the functions needed to make
a good decision?  now extrapolate that to a Crackhead.

	Prayer in schools - the operative word that you used is 'forced'
		    neither Rush or I believe you should force a prayer
		    on anyone, we just believe that if the validictorian
		    happens to be a christian and wants to pray (1st ammd)
		    that he/she shouldn't be cencsored.  I am a Christian,
		    and I have Muslem, Hindu, and other religion friends..
		    and I have NEVER been offended by their prayers, even
		    while I was in their presents, I don't think it kills
		    anyone (or stands on their rights) to hear someone
		    elses religious expressions.
.
>-Pete Zakel
> (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

>Everything you know is wrong!

Thank you for clearing that up Pete.

Chad
!
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13138 alt.politics.clinton:15770 alt.politics.elections:22598 talk.politics.misc:58148