I have seen a couple of comments relating to my John McAfee interview where the argument is made "Well at least McAffe understands the non-aggression principle."
I am not so sure about that. When I asked him about the non-aggression principle, he simply zeroed in on the word aggression and said he was against aggression and talked about how aggression was bad when humans and countries aggressive . That doesn't suggest to me a familiarity with NAP. Listen to the interview again.
For a libertarian, NAP has a very specific meaning and McAfee didn't come close to touching on it. (See Walter Block on NAP here).
Indeed, since he told me he hasn't read any books since he finished college and was unfamiliar with Murray Rothbard, it would be hard to think that McAfee would have an understanding of NAP as a libertarian concept.
As I said during the interview, he seems to have an instinctual hands off perspective with regard to government but he has no philosophical underpinning to his view.
He is only attractive as a libertarian candidate because the other prominent candidates are even worse. In other words, to quote Ocean Man, the Libertarian Party has gone to shit.