Comment: Labels are useful

(See in situ)


Labels are useful

when they mean something. Unfortunately, most political labels are near to worthless. If someone identifies himself as a liberal or a conservative or a democrat or a republican -- does it give you a clue as to what his position is on abortion, "preventive" wars, drug legalization, immigration, or any other issue? It does not. Given the nature of the political process, this is not surprising: all politicians try to use whatever labels carry a positive connotation in voters' minds, regardless of their actual principles.

Until rather recently, the "libertarian" label still stood for a clearly defined set of principles, largely because the Libertarian brand-name has not been sufficiently attractive to voters to prompt politicians to apply it to themselves.

In 2008, the Libertarian Party essentially scrapped its principles and tried to turn itself into one more mainstream political party. It didn't work, and now the label stands for nothing. So I don't much mind that Rand Paul doesn't label himself a libertarian.

I DO mind that he seems to support an interventionist foreign policy. I DO mind that he doesn't favor drug legalization. I DO mind that he will not stand up for the rights of the people our government has locked up in Guantanamo. If Rand Paul doesn't stand for peace and liberty and every damn bit of the Bill of Rights, F*CK him. I donated some money to his campaign, early on, and I bitterly regret it.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...