Clint Eastwood: I'm A Libertarian

Libertarian Party press release ^ | 2/18/97 | Not sure

[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.

[Cultural Jihad]

I am not for minors doing drugs but . . .

The question was not doing drugs but buying them legally. Speaking of socialist 'harm reduction' schemes . . .

---

What kind of idiot [would] think it would be acceptable to sell or make available narcotics to individuals under 18 years old?

"Hello."

---

Q: Isn’t there a role for reasonable regulation of the sale of drugs to minors?

A: When you pass laws against consensual activities, whether for adults or children, you never get the result you want. When the drug war ends, which I think will happen in the next five years, I hope the federal government will stay completely out of it and different states will pass different laws. Perhaps all states will ban it for children. I don’t think that’s the best thing to do. It will have some perverse results. And some children will probably die. When you buy a legal drug, you know what it is. You don’t take an overdose by mistake. Heroin, incidentally, is not a particularly addictive drug.

[Oztrich Boy]

George Soros does not have the ability to take my guns.
Not yet! Please read his philosophy and agenda ...

To suceed Soros would still have to get his hands on an overmighty Government such as the one which you seem to be happy to create.

[Nanodik]

Not really. If I had my way I would make it illegal to sell narcotics to minors but I would not have the feds deciding this since it seems to be more of a state issue.

[Nanodik]

So you don't mind if minors do drugs so long as they can be incarcerated for it? I don't see that locking up 15 year olds for doing pot helps any individual or society as a whole.

[Cultural Jihad]

No one has been incarcerated for simple possession of marijuana in my state for the past 30 years, so I don't know what you are hyperboling about.

[Nanodik]

So you want laws against drugs but don't want to see them enforced?

[Nanodik]

No one has been incarcerated for simple possession of marijuana in my state for the past 30 years, so I don't know what you are hyperboling about.

From Drugpolicy.org:

Prior to its passage, the independent Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) predicted that by treating rather than incarcerating low level drug offenders, SACPA would save California taxpayers approximately $1.5 billion over the next five years and prevent the need for a new prison slated for construction, avoiding an expenditure of approximately $500 million. LAO estimated that SACPA would annually divert as many as 36,000 probationers and parolees from incarceration into community-based treatment.

[Cultural Jihad]

So you want laws against drugs but don't want to see them enforced?

Who says laws are not enforced? Who says that law enforcement against simple cannabis possession in California must entail incarceration?

[Nanodik]

OK so what would you like the courts to do to a 15 year old who gets caught with pot? Personally, I would like to see law enforcement going after dangerous criminals, not 15 year olds with the munchies...

[Cultural Jihad]

Regardless of what I would like the courts to do, I was only countering your false assertion about incarceration. If the good people of Arizona have derived different practices in their self-governance efforts then that is really an issue amongst themselves alone.

[Nanodik]

Nonsense - you say there have been no incarceration in you state for 30 years but I doubt you know this for a fact. You should perhaps check the sentencing guidelines in your state to see if simple possession calls for incarceration.

Federal guidelines are as follows:

http://www.ussc.gov/1998guid/2d2_1.htm

[cinFLA]

Not really. If I had my way I would make it illegal to sell narcotics to minors but I would not have the feds deciding this since it seems to be more of a state issue.

Gotcha! 99 percent of the wod's is at the state/local level. So you already have your way!

[Cultural Jihad]

I stated the facts on simple possession in my state as presented by www.norml.org but don't let me crimp your hyperbole.

[Nanodik]

Not really. The WOD is really the war on freedom. I make a distinction between minors and adults. I don't believe that most minors have the facilities to make informed decisions regarding important issues and therefore need guardians (parents) to look after their interest. Adults on the other hand should be able to do to themselves as they wish. The WOD is not there to keep minors from buying drugs.

[Nanodik]

Is hyperbole your word for the week?

The issue here are laws, and so long as there is a law that is there to punish you for what you do to yourself then a great injustice exists. Why don't you answer my question as to what you would like have the justice system do to minors who are caught using drugs? If you can't think of anything, then don't tell me you support drug laws that keep drugs from minors.

[Cultural Jihad]

... and so long as there is a law that is there to punish you for what you do to yourself then a great injustice exists.

Well, the good people of Arizona might see things differently in regards to cannabis products, but here in California the 'punishment' is a whooping $100 fine for simple possession, if even that.

[Nanodik]

The good people of Arizona saw fit to pass medical cannabis laws but the feds threatened to prosecute any doctors who prescribed pot for their patients.

And the fine is not the issue. How is CA made better off by fining someone who has some pot on them $100. How is the guy with the pot made better off? The only ones made better by this scheme are the cops who get some free weed to smoke in their squad car and the courts who get a $100 check in the mail. A more succinct point would be this: If I only stole $100 from you, should you feel violated? The fine is not the issue. The fact that moral busybodies want to use the threat of force to impose their way of life on someone else is. Libertarians just want to be left to live their life as they see fit, not as you see fit.

[Cultural Jihad]

It takes a Herculean effort to even be liable for the $100 fine, much less to actually get one. If the good people of California are unhappy with the way they self-govern themselves they are free to change the laws or move to Arizona. If anyone in society wants to be left alone he is free to purchase a deserted island somewhere.

[Nanodik]

I figured it was useless in engaging in a philosophical discussion with the authoritarian collectivist who like to refer to themselves as "conservatives". Perhaps you have forgotten that obscure document that heralded the creation of this nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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

[Nanodik]

More good news for you CJ! The feds are going to ban ephedra. Get ready to have the DEA swooping down on fat people and athletes and locking them up to keep society safe!