Friday, May 27, 2016

"The Libertarian Party Is Weaker Than I Ever Thought"

Ocean Man emails following my interview with John McAfee:

Was just thinking a bit more about tour McAfee interview. Figured I'd type it out. I

First, the thought that really dawned on me is that The Libertarian Party really is a piece of shit. McAfee startled me at first because the initial libertarian principles that he believes in are rare. And I think it's quite admirable. He sounds like a true believer in non-aggression.

However, once you get past that, he's really just a guy off the street (perhaps with a lot of money, he's definitely not a bum) who believes in non-aggression, and a very limited government. If that's all it takes to be a major presidential candidate for The Libertarian Party, then they're weaker then I ever thought they were.

McAfee had no idea who Rothbard was, or any libertarian thinker for that matter. And it really sounded like he had no idea who Ron Paul was. Even my most leftist friends have good things to say about Ron Paul. McAfee had nothing! Not even an anecdotal compliment.

How on Earth is McAfee supposed to run for president without any knowledge of libertarianism whatsoever (other than the core principle)? He said he doesn't read books! Is the Libertarian Party that devoid of individuals who are willing to carry the party's banner?

McAfee also said that he'd support the other candidates except Gary Johnson. Fair enough. Gary Johnson is a faux libertarian who also has no grounding in libertarian principles. But McAfee implied that he would support Austin Petersen, who is a basically a neocon with libertarian lipstick! 

If McAffee is willing to support Petersen, it means he doesn't even understand his competition!

I don't mean to beat up on McAfee, what he knows, and what he doesn't know. Everyone is different, and at different stages in our intellectual development. He seems sincere in at least getting across a message of 'keep your hands off.' That, by itself, is a rarity.

However, that's not nearly enough to run for president of the empire. 

The fact that McAfee is a major contender for the Libertarian Party's Presidential candidate proves that the party is nothing but a piece of shit at this point.

9 comments:

  1. The LP is a empty vessel with ballot access in all 50 states.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The fact Austin Petersen is even playing a significant role as a presidential candidate is both laughable and suspect. What is his background? He is a former model who worked on Judge Napolitano's show and started a website nobody reads. Even with all the face time he's been getting by running for president, he's still far less known than other libertarians around his age. He has half the twitter followers that Adam Kokesh has. Yet, for some odd reason, he's been getting a ton of free press and endorsements from conservatives - like Eric Erickson and Mary Matilin - but no libertarians. Judge Napolitano, who should know him better than anyone, has not endorsed him. I guess it pays off to ridicule Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and Murray Rothbard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jason Stapleton, who beat up Petersen pretty good back in December for his proposed foreign interventions, seems to have come around. However, Stapleton claims to have significant influence on Petersen and his presentation which he claims has greatly improved. I have also beat up on Petersen. I guess at this point, we just need a placeholder who will not embarrass us. And I guess at this point, I’m more worried about Johnson and McAfee than Petersen.

      http://www.jasonstapleton.com/thoughts-on-the-petersenbeck-interview-plus-i-go-after-alex-jones/

      Delete
    2. I first heard of Petersen last fall or summer when he was on The Tom Woods Show and found him, to use a Lew Rockwell term, repellent. Then I heard him on Chris Cantwell's show bragging about all the "pussy" he gets. He's just not my cup of tea. He kind of reminds me of Iceman from Top Gun. I'll have to check out Stapleton's take though.

      Delete
    3. I'm not claiming he's the perfect candidate. I think he might be the least harmful under the circumstances. I think he could become a decent candidate if he has the proper presentation. That's a big IF.

      Delete
  3. The fact that McAfee is not well read and still comes up with the NAP is a huge positive. The libertarian movement doesn't need another candidate who can quote chapter and verse of Rothbard or von Mises. It needs someone to speak simple truths revealing the corrupt nature of power politics. My only concern is that McAfee seems to think we need government for defense and that is a big mistake. However he does seem to see the mistake in pre-emptively attacking other countries. He would certainly be entertaining and might stumble on a way to redirect the movement toward a non-political path.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When have we had this candidate who could quote Rothbard or Von Mises? I ran for Congress in 1980 with Ed Clark and David Koch against George Crockett. I have a good memory.

      Delete
    2. Harry Browne and Ron Paul were LP candidates who could Mises and Rothbard.

      Delete
  4. I didn't think the LP had anything left to it anyway and this just verifies that impression- how pathetic that he dismisses both libertarian philosophy and figures alike. Decent instincts are nice but not something that can be an effective messenger for liberty. That being said, I guess I'll be rooting for him (à la Rothbard/Raimondo) vs. the others but I will never support him with money or vote.

    ReplyDelete