Posted on 12/27/2003 11:42:04 AM PST by Conservative til I die
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 ----------------------------------------- For release: February 18, 1997 ----------------------------------------- For additional information: George Getz, Deputy Director of Communications Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 -----------------------------------------
Clint Eastwood announces: I'm a "libertarian"
WASHINGTON, DC -- Watch out liberals and conservatives -- Dirty Harry is a libertarian.
That's what movie star Clint Eastwood announced this month in Playboy magazine.
In an interview in the March issue, the Oscar-winning actor and director candidly affiliated himself with the growing libertarian movement when he was asked: "How would you characterize yourself poli- tically?"
The laconic Eastwood answered, "Libertarian" -- and then went on to explain the philosophy in simple terms: "Everyone leaves everyone else alone."
He also took a swipe at the Republicans and Democrats, noting that neither of those political parties "seems to have the ability to embrace that sort of thing."
"Talk about making my day," said the Libertarian Party's National Director, Perry Willis. "Having Clint Eastwood declare him- self a libertarian is better than a fistful of dollars. We hope his announcement will have a sudden impact on the public's awareness of the libertarian philosophy -- and the Libertarian Party, too."
However, voters shouldn't expect to see "Dirty Harry For President" bumperstickers appearing soon; Eastwood flatly rejected a career in politics. "Being a politician is about the last thing I'd want to do," he said. "It's a lot of work and a lot of frustra- tion."
But if the star of the new movie "Absolute Power" ever changes his mind, Willis says he'd love to sit down and talk to him.
"If Mr. Eastwood ever decides to join the Libertarian Party or seek public office on our ticket, we'd be happy to discuss with him how that could advance the cause of liberty in America," he said. "Until that time, however, we're delighted that he's on our side philosophi- cally."
The 66-year-old Eastwood has been an increasingly outspoken critic of government abuse in recent months -- echoing the Libertarian Party's criticisms of the federal government's role in the bloodbath at Waco, Texas, and the shooting of Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
In an essay he wrote for the January 12, 1997 issue of Parade Magazine, Eastwood noted: "Abuse of power isn't limited to bad guys in other nations. It happens in our own country if we're not vigilant."
For example, he wrote: "At Waco, was there really an urgency to get those people out of the compound at that particular time? Was the press going to make it look heroic for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? At Ruby Ridge, there was one guy in a cabin at the top of the mountain. Was it necessary for federal agents to go up there and shoot a 14-year-old in the back and shoot a woman with a child in her arms? What kind of mentality does that?"
And Eastwood displayed a keen cynicism about the lure of political power. "Those in power get jaded, deluded, and seduced by power itself," he wrote. "The hunger for absolute power and, more to the point, the abuse of power, are part of human nature."
Eastwood joins a growing number of individuals in the entertainment industry who have identified themselves as libertarians. Included on that list are TV star John Laroquette, humorist Dave Barry, author P.J. O'Rourke, movie actor Russell Means, magician Jillette Penn, author Camille Paglia, TV reporter John Stossell, and comedian Dennis Miller.
Since 1954, Eastwood has appeared in dozens of movies and become one of the leading box office draws in the world. His films include "A Fistful of Dollars" (1964), "Dirty Harry" (1971),"Any Which Way You Can" (1980), "In the Line of Fire" (1993), and "The Bridges of Madison County" (1995). His 1992 Wester"n Unforgiven" earned him Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director. His one foray into politics was as mayor of Carmel, California, from 1986-1988.
You children should really take it up with management.
Fortunately you can't paint the Republicans with a broad brush, only some of them react this way at the mere mention of Libertarians. I found it quite enthralling that we had the opposite reception in New Hampshire after the FreeStaters voted to move there....the Democrats had a cow, and the Republicans including the governor welcomed us with open arms.
Why you ask ?
They both lose
That was my point exactly. I don't think the confederacy is in need of an apologist, but Lincoln sure is. Remember that slavery was not the reason that Lincoln went to war, but to preserve the "union". Or more succinctly put, to subjugate the south to northern rule. The end of slavery was perhaps the only good thing to come out of that but I believe that without the war of norther agression, slavery would have died a natural death in the south as mounting pressure from Europe and the north and a growing elightenment would have forced the south to be a little more introspective. I find it curious that people who point out that what Lincoln did was wrong, immoral and to the detriment of both the Union and the Confederacy are somehow branded as conspiracy theorist and lumped with the tin-foil hat gang.
Exactly! Libertarianism was first described when the LP was created. The underlying political philosophy is what would be called "classical liberalism". If you believe you are a small "l" libertarian, you should actually refer to yourself as a liberal. Unfortunately, idiot talk-show hosts have associated this moniker with hard-left socialists. There is nothing liberal about today's "liberals".
I suppose you are right in that so long as you do not buy into the bunk that "conservative" is a political philosophy. That is, you could be a conservative libertarian is you chose not to smoke, do drugs, drink and engage in wild sex but had no problem with other people choosing to engage in those things.
Just following Jesus' lead. He went were the sinners were!
I hate to come to the defence of someone who calls himself a conservative, but your statment is way off bounds. Nothing in the constitution adequately defines when a person becomes a person under the law. We are left to our own reasoning when it comes to that question. The fact is that abortion is perhaps the biggest argument among libertarians. You can apply the same basic philosophy, and depending on whether you consider the unborn a person under the law, come up with entirely different conclusions. I am a pro-life libertarian simply because I do not believe that the number of cells in your body or your bio-mass should determine whether or not you have legal rights under the US constituion. That does not make me a zealot or somehow unconstitutional. You and I look at the same set of facts and because there are no guidelines set down in law, we come up with different conclusions. The abortion issue is the symptom of a greater problem, and that is that the constitution is mostly silent on what exactly defines a "person".
bray = idiot with a dial-up connection
Republicans defining libertarianism? Just tune into Rush Limbaugh and wait for him to say "Maggot infested, dope-smoking, plastic-banana, good-time, rock-and-rollers" and you pretty much have it. If libertarians are going to let the Republicans define them and their philosophy, then they might as well just give up and join the Demoblicans or the Republicrats.
Sorry tpaine, I thought you were a libertarian.
I hate to come to the defence of someone who calls himself a conservative, but your statment is way off bounds.
Pulling my statement out of its context is out of bounds.
Nothing in the constitution adequately defines when a person becomes a person under the law.
Not true.. -- The 14th specifies "All persons born". The USSC decision included 'viabily', [being capable of living before actual birth] as a definition, -- and viablity increases every day, with advances in medical arts.
We are left to our own reasoning when it comes to that question. The fact is that abortion is perhaps the biggest argument among libertarians. You can apply the same basic philosophy, and depending on whether you consider the unborn a person under the law, come up with entirely different conclusions. I am a pro-life libertarian simply because I do not believe that the number of cells in your body or your bio-mass should determine whether or not you have legal rights under the US constituion. That does not make me a zealot or somehow unconstitutional.
OF course it doesn't.. You have to insist that government enforce your beliefs, ~as law~, to become a constitutional scofflaw & zealot..
Do you?
You and I look at the same set of facts and because there are no guidelines set down in law, we come up with different conclusions. The abortion issue is the symptom of a greater problem, and that is that the constitution is mostly silent on what exactly defines a "person".
Rational persons can arrive at reasonable regulations [like trial by jury] on moral dilemmas such as attempting to class early term abortion as murder. Zealots cannot. -- Choose your side.
Now you are the one taking things out of context. The 14th provides no definition of "person", but does clarify citizenship and rights accorded thereunder. As for the USSC, they do not have the power to alter the constitution, and I specifically said that there is no adequate constitutional definition of a "person", which there isn't. Besides, the USSC is hardly a bastion of rational thought let alone constitutional though.
You have to insist that government enforce your beliefs, ~as law~, to become a constitutional scofflaw & zealot.. Do you?
The constitution puts restrictions on the federal govt and sometimes on state and local govts. As such, a citizen not in a place of govt authority cannot be a scofflaw. If you want scofflaws, write your senator or representative but you most likely won't find one here. As for being a zealot, I still think OJ is guilty of murder despite the fact he was acquitted - does that make me a zealot? I think the laws ought to be enforced according to their original intent, whether or not I agree with them. Do I believe abortion is murder? Philosophically, yes. Do I believe the US constitution supports this position - not adequately, but sure it can be argued. Does that make me a zealot? I don't think so.
Rational persons can arrive at reasonable regulations [like trial by jury] on moral dilemmas such as attempting to class early term abortion as murder. Zealots cannot. -- Choose your side.
If there is a point here, I missed it...
Not true.. -- The 14th specifies "All persons born".
The USSC decision included 'viabily', [being capable of living before actual birth] as a definition, -- and viablity increases every day, with advances in medical arts.
Now you are the one taking things out of context. The 14th provides no definition of "person", but does clarify citizenship and rights accorded thereunder.
"All persons born" are the first 3 words of the 14th, defining those whose rights are to be protected under our constitution.
As for the USSC, they do not have the power to alter the constitution,
'Alter' is not at issue. The USSC defines constitutional disputes.
and I specifically said that there is no adequate constitutional definition of a "person", which there isn't.
The facts belie you, as I explained above.
Besides, the USSC is hardly a bastion of rational thought let alone constitutional though.
So what? The words of the 14th are clear enough to decide the issue.
You have to insist that government enforce your beliefs, ~as law~, to become a constitutional scofflaw & zealot.. Do you?
The constitution puts restrictions on the federal govt and sometimes on state and local govts. As such, a citizen not in a place of govt authority cannot be a scofflaw.
Bull.. This position is ludicrous. You are a scofflaw if you do not support our constitutions laws.
If you want scofflaws, write your senator or representative but you most likely won't find one here. As for being a zealot, I still think OJ is guilty of murder despite the fact he was acquitted - does that make me a zealot? I think the laws ought to be enforced according to their original intent, whether or not I agree with them. Do I believe abortion is murder? Philosophically, yes. Do I believe the US constitution supports this position - not adequately, but sure it can be argued. Does that make me a zealot? I don't think so.
Rational persons can arrive at reasonable regulations [like trial by jury] on moral dilemmas such as attempting to class early term abortion as murder. Zealots cannot.
-- You seem to have chosen your side, in your rant above.
If there is a point here, I missed it...
Whatever. - I can't help you to learn to reason.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
So does the 14th amendment limit "person-hood" to those born or naturalized in the US? Get it straight - the 14th amendment was to make sure that black people would not be granted something less that citizenship in the US. It does not define who is and who is not a person. It clarifies citizenship and one does not need to be a citizen to be a beneficiary of the protections of the US constitution.
As for the USSC, those idiots could say that day is night and night is day, but that does not make it so? The recent decision on McCain-Feingold is a perfect example of this. The majority decision never mentions the text of the first amendment which is a telling sign that they have even given up the charade of interpreting the constitution. They have gone on to make themselves a black-robed star chamber.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress
So does this mean that all Senators or Representatives can be aborted or that only aborted fetuses can hold federal public office?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.