C. Michael Pickens assesses the race for the Libertarian Presidential nomination thus far

C. Micharel Pickens at Freedom Gulch:

In a way, John McAfee’s campaign is good and bad for the Libertarian Party. There is no doubt that John McAfee is a recognizable name, already garnering a lot of media attention for the LP and as someone who has been working diligently to grow the LP since 2011 I welcome the new eyes and ears towards our efforts.

Unfortunately, in the case of McAfee, not all attention is necessarily positive. What will these people think about the Libertarian Party and Libertarians in general if his campaign continues to gain attention? Will they appreciate scandals revolving around a potential murder in Belize (as seen on Dateline here)? How about stories of hookers and blow (as seen in this video here)? There have also been claims that his anti-virus software, bearing his namesake, may have slowed computers down and was a pain in the ass to uninstall. Personally, I would never want to be associated with any of those things. Now the “hookers and blow” part is fine for other people to do as long as it’s consensual, but do we all want to be represented by that as a party? The fact that there is a murder controversy involved really takes it to a whole new level of potential PR disaster.

In a recent interview with Being Libertarian John McAfee stated, “In my 70 years there is little I have not done, in my past I have taken more drugs than you could possibly carry.” When asked about the “Non-Initiation of Force Pledge” (as seen here) he stated, “I don’t think I would sign the pledge without further clarification. Uh, I need to understand what that actually means.” There was a similar misunderstanding about the concept of Self-Ownership, as found here. I know it may sound like I’m nitpicking, but I’m just curious, don’t you think that we should select a candidate who understands and believes the core principles of the Libertarian Party, representing the Libertarian Party?

However, when weighing the pros and cons, I actually think his campaign is a good thing. I just don’t want to see him as the next Presidential Candidate. Imagine the millions of people who have read the news about John McAfee joining the Libertarian Party presidential race. It could be argued that we need to take advantage of this new-found interest by teaching these new members and viewers what truly defines a Libertarian. This is our time to promote the “non-aggression principle” (as explained by Adam Kokesh author of the book, “FREEDOM” in this short video) and the principle of “self-ownership” (as explained by Ken Schooland author of the book, “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible” in this short video.)

So, what about Gary Johnson and Steve Kerbel? I would personally support both of these candidates due to their overall viability and lack of scandal. This is not to say that Johnson and Kerbel are flawless. Truthfully, I may be biased since I know both of them personally and think they are each really great people with accomplished backgrounds of executive experience. Fortunately for us, their downsides aren’t really all that bad. First off, Gary Johnson hasn’t yet announced that he is running for President. I’m going to leave this alone until the time comes.

Now what about Steve Kerbel? The biggest downside that I have seen is his lack of name recognition. However, despite his minimal amounts of political experience, he has experience running a company in an executive capacity. He is also the author of, “Take “Everyman” Down – A 12 Step Program to servitude of the American Populace and Destruction of the American Dream” a book which outlines the road on which we are currently traveling as a country, and what we can do to change the course. Kerbel does have an “anti-politician” message that may play well with the current state of political unrest. His campaign is also putting out a solid Libertarian message I would be proud to support. (Link to his Facebook page) He is also right on point in his support for the Non-Aggression Principle as shown in this short video. His stance on the founding principles of the Libertarian Party is spot-on and he is truly running a respectable Libertarian campaign. The question now becomes, “will he be able to build up the campaign organization to compete with the media appointed front runners?”

I know I left out a few Libertarian candidates also running for President, but this is my article and these are the candidates are who I feel to be the main front runners in the race to capture the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination.

Before closing, I do want to mention one other candidate who has recently landed on my radar due to his anti-non-aggression principle misinformation from a poorly set-up clickbait website (I am not going to link to it to save you from the pain). I will let Austin Petersen explain it himself from his own facebook page:

Austin

At least McAfee is just confused about the NAP, whereas Austin Petersen is openly hostile towards anyone who believes in it. The only way to defeat the spread of a bad idea is through spreading an opposite idea. With that said, Steve Kerbel is the only candidate I can support right now because I believe he is the only candidate in the position to challenge the misinformation spread by McAfee and Petersen and he is running a solid Libertarian campaign to educate the masses. I urge you to support his campaign.

4 thoughts on “C. Michael Pickens assesses the race for the Libertarian Presidential nomination thus far

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    “So, what about Gary Johnson and Steve Kerbel? I would personally support both of these candidates due to their overall viability and lack of scandal.”

    You’re kidding, right?

    You don’t consider it a scandal that Johnson racked up six figures in campaign debt, scammed the LP into getting him a government welfare check to cover it, then ran up SEVEN figures in campaign debt — debt which still remains unpaid, although he’s submitted a plan to the FEC to screw his real creditors and “pay” his allegedly (according to them) fake creditors with uses of his campaign mailing list fraudulently valued at $150k a pop?

    You wouldn’t consider it a scandal if the FEC accepted that plan and then Johnson ran again, able to start raising money without having to give it to the creditors he already owes?

    Kerbel has at LEAST two bona fide scandals that I know of in his background. He’s explained those scandals — legal complaints in Colorado and Missouri, at the Missouri counts involving allegations that, if true, would constitute initiation of force — in a way that I find satisfactory provided no contradictory evidence emerges, but that’s not the same thing as them not being scandals.

    Meanwhile, McAfee’s “scandals” are:

    1) That a narco-terror regime targeted him, raided him, shot his dog, then later — after he made noise about it — alleged that he committed a murder, an allegation that the Dateline piece you refer to pretty much demolishes; and

    2) That he used to use drugs. Hellooooooo … Johnson just resigned as CEO of a company specifically and publicly DEDICATED TO MARKETING DRUGS.

  2. Shivany Lane

    @georgephillies

    It’s McAfee, not MacAfee.

    His software was fine when he left the company years ago. It only became bloated and sucky when Intel bought it out. John was long gone by then.

    Aren’t you the party of Personal Freedom? Are you telling me that a man cannot have sex with whoever he wants in his own home? BTW, the video you linked to was a parody, a joke. John is a Merry Prankster and will never pass up an opportunity to make the irresponsible journalists look silly.

    The “hookers” were not hookers. They were the dancers at the local Portland Gentleman’s club. And if you noticed, the only person to really touch him was Janice.
    The “blow”, dude no one has called it that since the Miami Vice days, was supposed to be Bath Salts. A Wired magazine writer accused him of manufacturing Bath Salts. (BTW, Bath Salts are not illegal in Belize)
    The gun was a prop.The video is also over a year old. Isn’t there some rule about necroing old shit?

    For every video, news story and “scandal” you can come up with about John McAfee, I can counter with one that is favorable to him. He is considered the expert on Cybersecurity. Some have even called him a Cybersecurity Guru. And at 70 years old, he still draws a crowd wherever he goes. He is a celebrity at Defcon..

  3. Robert Capozzi

    JMc: “I don’t think I would sign the pledge without further clarification. Uh, I need to understand what that actually means.”

    me: Great insight and honesty here. On one level, the NAP sounds like apple pie. But what exactly does it mean as a political principle or even rule. Or is it simply a positive, sentimental statement?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *