L. Neil Smith Endorses McAfee for President

l neil smithIn a Sunday essay published at his Libertarian Enterprise, Libertarian novelist and essayist L. Neil Smith endorses John McAfee for the presidency of the United States:

After months and months of having to listen to RINOs, LINOs, and self-righteous conservative Republican religious cooties, who can’t keep their Invisible Playmate in their pants, John McAfee is a breath of political fresh air. He does not take a single stance I know of on issues that I disagree with, or find unlibertarian.

In addition to his long career as a novelist and polemicist (The Libertarian Enterprise is in its 20th year of weekly publication), Smith was the subject of two “draft” campaigns for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination (disclosure: The author of this post was self-designated HMFIC of those campaigns) and served as the Libertarian Party ‘s presidential candidate in Arizona in the 2000 election.

After the Libertarian National Committee disaffiliated that state’s party, the LPAZ ran its own nomination contest, nominating Smith for president and libertarian writer Vin Suprynowicz for vice-president instead of adopting the Libertarian National Convention’s slate (Harry Browne and Art Olivier). Smith and Suprynowicz polled nearly 5,775 votes for 0.4% of the  presidential vote in Arizona.

43 thoughts on “L. Neil Smith Endorses McAfee for President

  1. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Color me a bit surprised. I had rather expected Smith to endorse Darryl W. Perry if he chose to endorse anyone. They seem somewhat more ideologically simpatico, and Perry also seems to have torn a page from the 2004 “draft campaign” in which the treasurer (me) opened with a letter telling the FEC to piss up a rope because it would not be receiving reports.

  2. George Phillies

    Saying you will not report is more interesting if you cross the line to have a legal obligation to report.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    George,

    Well, in the “draft L. Neil Smith” campaign, the goal WAS to raise/spend more than $5k, and to publicly so report, while not officially communicating anything to the FEC. But we didn’t make it.

  4. Shane

    So this guy is essentially saying he supports McAfee because he has multiple girlfriends and the LP “suits” won’t like him? Okay then.

    I find guys like Smith always base their arguments on “suits” and money. Every enemy is crooked, corrupt, unprincipled and trying to steal money for libertarians — which is laughable.

    They throw out insults like Trump on a bad day and it’s likely due to their own lack of accomplishment and success in society. They can’t win in life and when they can’t even persuade a small group like the LP, they run off and whine for 13 years.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Shane,

    I hereby accept, as firsthand expert testimony, your opinion on people who throw out lots of insults because they lack accomplishment and success in society.

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    I hereby accept, as firsthand expert testimony, your opinion on people who throw out lots of insults because they lack accomplishment and success in society.

    Shane certainly has plenty of criticisms to share, doesn’t he?

  7. Andy

    I have been following the political writings of L. Neil Smith for a long time, and I isually agree with him. This is one of the few Instances where I do not.

    It appears that Mr. Smith is unaware of the unlibertarian issue stances taken by McAfee, and his main Interest in the LP being ballot access.

    Smith also overestimated the wealth of Mcafee, aa he was never a billionaire, and he lost at least 96% of the $100 million he once had.

  8. langa

    He does not take a single stance I know of on issues that I disagree with, or find unlibertarian.

    Smith must not have looked very hard. McAfee’s signature issue (cyber security) is one on which he takes a non-libertarian position, by advocating the creation of a new government bureaucracy.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    langa,

    Maybe Smith defines libertarianism differently than you do. He tends to sort of wander a range with small-government constitutionalism (specifically, Bill of Rights Enforcement) at one end and anarcho-capitalism (of his own, quite interesting, variety) at the other.

    I seem to recall at least one instance in which he actually called for the retention and expansion of a federal government program (the Civilian Marksmanship Program), and he does seem to recognize the legitimacy of some kind of “national defense,” albeit one conducted in a diffuse and voluntaristic manner.

    Perhaps he didn’t notice McAfee’s “Office of Digital Transformation” plan. Or perhaps he interpreted it not as the creation of a new bureaucracy, but as a de facto re-purposing and re-staffing of TSA, since that’s what McAfee wants to eliminate to fund the ODT; and decided that it consisted of a genuine “national defense” scheme that he doesn’t have a big problem with.

    I disagree with McAfee on the subject of the ODT, of course, and have written about why. And I’m a little surprised that Smith doesn’t. But heck, Smith surprises me all the time.

  10. langa

    Perhaps he didn’t notice McAfee’s “Office of Digital Transformation” plan. Or perhaps he interpreted it not as the creation of a new bureaucracy, but as a de facto re-purposing and re-staffing of TSA, since that’s what McAfee wants to eliminate to fund the ODT; and decided that it consisted of a genuine “national defense” scheme that he doesn’t have a big problem with.

    Well, that would certainly be a novel interpretation, although if that is, in fact, his opinion, you would expect him to explain it, rather than simply assuming that everyone will understand what he means.

    More generally, I have a pretty broad definition of what it means for someone to be a libertarian, but a pretty narrow definition of what counts as a libertarian position. For me, a position is libertarian if and only if it is fully consistent with the NAP. However, I am willing to recognize people as libertarians, even if they take some non-libertarian positions. For example, even though I consider anarchists to be the only fully consistent libertarians (since the existence of monopoly government violates the NAP), I still include not only minarchists, but even those who want a bit more than a true minarchy (such as Hayek, Milton Friedman, etc.) as libertarians. Basically, anyone who is a reasonably consistent opponent of the welfare state, the warfare state, and the police state is a “libertarian” in my book. But even though I may consider those people to be libertarians, that doesn’t mean their pet statist projects are libertarian, too.

  11. George Phillies

    Was it wrong to add the Air Force, a new branch of government? It’s a reconfiguration of the national defense arrangements corresponding to new technology. The Cyberdefense Corps is more of the same.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    L: But even though I may consider those people to be libertarians, that doesn’t mean their pet statist projects are libertarian, too.

    me: So, let’s say Andy Craig running for Congress as a L did not take a position on whether the Air Force should be abolished or not. However, since he does call military spending cuts, he’s asked whether he would go so far as to abolish the Air Force.

    If he said No, but he would close bases and end certain weapons programs, would you say he’s not L on the issue? Or what if he added something like, ultimately, yes, I’d like to see the Air Force abolished, to be replaced by insurance-company air security divisions, would that get him back on the plumbline reservation?

    Do you expect L candidates to be political theorists, advocating end states, not just actions they would push for during their term in office, if they win?

  13. Andy

    “George Phillies

    March 1, 2016 at 20:28

    Was it wrong to add the Air Force, a new branch of government? It’s a reconfiguration of the national defense arrangements corresponding to new technology. The Cyberdefense Corps is more of the same.”

    Is there really a need for a new government agency? What was the point of the Department of Homeland Security, when we already had the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard, Air National Guard, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, State Police, Sheriffs Departments, city/town police, and the 2nd amendment for that matter?

    Shouldn’t libertarians focus on cutting government, not creating new government departments? Don’t government agencies usually end up as over-bloated, inefficient, and corrupt bureaucracies?

  14. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    langa,

    Well, I was just spit-balling about what Smith might be basing his opinion on. As you point out, it’s up to him to explain that opinion as much or as little as he cares to.

    George,

    Splitting off the Air Force from the other services was probably the single dumbest move in the history of the US military.

  15. langa

    Was it wrong to add the Air Force, a new branch of government? It’s a reconfiguration of the national defense arrangements corresponding to new technology. The Cyberdefense Corps is more of the same.

    I’m not arguing whether it was “wrong” or not. I’m arguing whether McAfee’s position is libertarian or not, and it’s pretty clear that it’s not. While there might be some arguments for “reconfiguring” this or that, those arguments aren’t libertarian arguments. Libertarianism is about reducing the size of government, not changing its shape.

  16. Andy

    There are some issues which appear to be libertarian, but if done in isolation, would cause chaos. One example is with jails/prisons. Suppose one said that they wanted to cut off all of the funding for jails/prisons tomorrow. So all of the guards and the rest of the staff are laid off, so they do not report to work. Then say that the inmates could all walk out. Now it is true that there are lots of people in jail/prison for victimless crimes, and/or who have been falsely arrested, but even so, there are other people there who are in for having committed legitimate crimes (as in things that would be crimes in a libertarian society). So let’s say that 50% of the inmates are in for victimless crimes, and let’s say that another 10% are in because they were arrested on false charges. This would leave 40% who are in for having committed legitimate crimes. So if all of the inmates could just walk out of jail/prison, there’d be some real criminals, as in murderers, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, etc…, who’d be unleashed on the rest of society. Now maybe it still might be a net positive, if there are more people in jail/prison for victimless crimes and/or people who were falsely arrested (as in people who were charged for a crime they did not commit), but even so, I could see some real problems caused by releasing murderers, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, etc…

    Another issue with prisons are private prisons. Some libertarians act like privatizing prisons is a great libertarian reform (Gary Johnson comes to mind), but how great a thing are private prisons when we live in a system where lots of people are arrested for victimless crimes, or are otherwise falsely arrested due to the police lying or being incompetent, and when “privatized” prisons still receive tax payer funding, and when the people who profit from privatized prisons are able to vote and donate to political campaigns?

    Another issue is what happens to the government’s massive weapons stockpile, including all of the weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, and biological), in the event of a government shut down? Are the people who believe in big government going to just lay down their weapons and play nice if enough of the public stops believing in coercive government?

    What would happen If libertarians took control of the government and shut off Social Security payments and other entitlements/welfare programs? I’d wager that if done “cold turkey,” there’d be rioting in the streets.

    I see immigration in the same way. Sure, ideally people should be able to move where they want to move, provided that an area that is already settled has people who are willing to sell or rent places to live to them, but under the current system we live under, people can move in and get on welfare (and under the Refugee Resettlement Act, the government uses tax payer money to pay for the move, and then they encourage and help these immigrants sign up for every welfare program possible), use Affirmative Action, and if they become American citizens, they can register to vote, and since the government does a lousy job educating people, many of these new “American citizens” have no clue about any concept of having a limited government, gun rights, or a free (or at least semi-free) market, so what ends up happening is that a disproportionate number of immigrants hold socialist/communist points of view, and/or are theocrats. Sure, there are some who could be classified as a constitutionalist or libertarian (like the current Chair of the LP of Colorado, Lily Tang), but they are a minority. There have been numerous surveys that show that present day immigrants are less likely to support gun rights than the native born population, and that they are more likely to be in favor of socialist programs than the native born population. So instead of the libertarian ideal of “peaceful people crossing borders,” what we have in reality is a few peaceful people crossing borders, along with large numbers of foreign born socialists, communists, and theocrats.

    Some people will say, “Well there are native born Americans who hold socialist/communist views, or who are theocrats.” This is correct, however, even so, there are numerous surveys that indicate that natural born Americans who have families that have been in this country for several generations are less likely to support socialist programs, and they are more likely to support gun rights, as compared to foreign born people. Yes, there are exceptions to this, so I am speaking in generalities here, and every survey I have seen backs this up, as does my own anecdotal evidence. When it comes to gun rights, go to any gun show anywhere in the country and you tell me what the make up of the crowd in attendance is.

    Immigration in a truly free society would be more like what I outlined in my Libertarian Zone concept:

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/

  17. langa

    …let’s say Andy Craig running for Congress as a L … would close bases and end certain weapons programs, would you say he’s not L on the issue?

    I would say that his position is one that libertarians should support, since it moves us in a libertarian direction, but it’s not the actual libertarian position. It’s just like the drug issue. When candidates say marijuana should be legalized, but other “hard drugs” should not, that’s not the true libertarian position, but it does at least move us in the direction of the true libertarian position.

    Unfortunately, McAfee’s “reconfiguration” doesn’t even do that. It is, at best, a lateral move, and therefore, it’s a very poor choice to be the centerpiece of an LP presidential candidacy.

  18. langa

    Shouldn’t libertarians focus on cutting government, not creating new government departments? Don’t government agencies usually end up as over-bloated, inefficient, and corrupt bureaucracies?

    Yes. My point exactly.

  19. Andy

    I have heard at least a couple of Libertarians say that American military forces stationed overseas should be left where they are, as in tax payer money should not be used to bring them home.

    Would this be a good platform plank for Libertarian candidates to use in their campaigns?

    I would say not.

    This would be politically stupid, and it would also be an asshole thing to do.

  20. Andy

    langa said: “I would say that his position is one that libertarians should support, since it moves us in a libertarian direction, but it’s not the actual libertarian position.”

    Granting state marriage licenses to gays was not an actual ideal libertarian position, as the actual libertarian position is to get the government out of licensing marriage.

    I’m am not saying that granting state marriage licenses to gays is necessarily a bad thing, but I see it as more of an interim solution to a problem of unequal treatment under the law, but this does not mean that granting state marriage licenses to gays is some kind of great libertarian victory. A great libertarian victory on the issue would be to eliminate state marriage licensing for everyone.

    Medical marijuana and “taxing and regulating” marijuana are other examples of libertarian reforms that are not ideal. Sure, both are better than marijuana prohibition, but neither are the ideal libertarian solution.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Well, now, it’s getting interesting.

    McAfee would shut down an invasive, authoritarian agency that violates the rights of 1.73 million airline passengers each and every day.

    He would use the money saved to hire hackers and put them to work on cyber defense and cyber warfare projects.

    I don’t agree with his plan. But you say your criterion is movement in the direction of liberty and that this is instead a “lateral move.” In what universe?

  22. langa

    Granting state marriage licenses to gays was not an actual ideal libertarian position, as the actual libertarian position is to get the government out of licensing marriage.

    I agree 100%, and have made this exact point many times here on IPR.

  23. langa

    I don’t agree with his plan. But you say your criterion is movement in the direction of liberty and that this is instead a “lateral move.” In what universe?

    It’s a lateral move in the sense that it doesn’t get us one inch closer to the actual libertarian position on the TSA, which is that it should be abolished and all the money currently being spent on it should be returned to its rightful owners, instead of being “redirected” toward some other government boondoggle.

    Again, one could make arguments in favor of McAfee’s plan. But those would not be libertarian arguments.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Hmmm.

    The libertarian position is that the TSA should be abolished and the money spent on it returned to the taxpayers it was stolen from.

    McAfee’s position is that the TSA should be abolished and the money spent on something that, even accounting for the calculation problem, at first blush looks to be a lot less rights-violating.

    And you say it isn’t even “one inch” closer? Looks like somewhat greater than one inch to me, although maybe not quite halfway.

  25. langa

    OK, let me try explaining it differently. The way I see it, McAfee’s plan is a lot like the idea that has often been put forth by the left, that we should end the wars in the Middle East, and use the money we’re spending on those wars to increase spending on domestic welfare programs, infrastructure, and all the other big government programs of which most progressives are so enamored.

    Now, there is much to be said for this idea, and if it were put on the ballot as a referendum, I would strongly consider voting for it. Having said that, it’s definitely not a libertarian idea, and it would be ridiculous if an LP presidential candidate made such a plan the centerpiece of his campaign. As I have previously said here on IPR, I’m OK with LP candidates holding (a few) blatantly non-libertarian positions, but only as long as they downplay those positions, and avoid mentioning them unless it’s absolutely necessary. McAfee is doing just the opposite. He’s actually focusing on his least libertarian position.

    Also, is there any doubt that McAfee’s new agency would soon be engaging in exactly the same sort of domestic spying that the NSA is, and doing so under the exact same pretext of “national security”?

  26. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    langa,

    Well, I’m trying to understand you here, because I’m usually the one taking the line you take, but I’m not quite seeing how it applies here. That is, I’m big on pointing out that it’s difficult — for the most part completely impossible — to calculate “net aggression” with any accuracy, so it’s a non-starter to say “let’s move the money from Government Program A to Government Program B” and call that “a libertarian position.”

    But on this, I consider it a pretty trivial calculation.

    The TSA holds up, feels up, wand-rapes and otherwise just plainly and flatly violently abuses 1.7 million air travelers per day, day in and day out, without ceasing.

    The ODT’s job would be to design software that protects “critical IT infrastructure” stuff and that can be used to attack a prospective enemy’s “critical IT infrastructure” stuff. That’s not a surveillance function. Stuxnet didn’t spy on Iran’s nuclear stuff, it pranged Iran’s nuclear stuff.

    I don’t support the ODT idea, especially in the form McAfee proposes, but to me it’s like comparing the drone assassination program to the office that writes the checks for USDA’s wool and mohair subsidies. They’re both bad, but I’d have trouble arguing that zeroing out the budget for the former and sending out more wool and mohair checks wasn’t a move “in a libertarian direction.”

  27. langa

    First, if the ODT actually stuck to its ostensible raison d’etre, it would be the first government agency ever to do so. Unless McAfee is a magician, his agency would be subject to the same unintended consequences as any other government agency, program, or law.

    Second, even if I grant that the plan would result in some net reduction in aggression, that still doesn’t make it a libertarian policy. That was the whole point of the analogy to the left’s plan to redirect military spending toward welfare programs.

    This whole discussion actually reminds me of the discussions here a while back about gay marriage, which I also characterized as a “lateral move.” But as I said then, even if Obergefell was actually a “marginal improvement” over the status quo, that didn’t change my basic point, that it was not anything for libertarians to get excited about, and certainly wasn’t the “huge victory” for libertarianism that many were claiming it was.

    I feel much the same way about this issue. So, if it makes you feel better, feel free to go back to my earlier comment and substitute the phrase “marginal improvement” for “lateral move”:

    Unfortunately, McAfee’s “reconfiguration” doesn’t even do that. It is, at best, a marginal improvement, and therefore, it’s a very poor choice to be the centerpiece of an LP presidential candidacy.

    Can we agree on that?

  28. Pingback: IPR: L. Neil Smith Endorses McAfee for President | American Third Party Report

  29. Shivany Lane

    Wow, there sure has been a lot of activity on this page since I last looked.

    I am still playing catch up on what a TRUE Libertarian is. I was watching the glowing box thingy with all the talking head peeps and Ted Cruz actually said he wanted a flat tax and would abolish the IRS. That’s partly Libertarian isn’t it?
    He also said that He would do away with the EPA and the Tariff systems so we can have a free market economy again. That sounds kinda Libertarian to me too. You know all that invisible hand stuff.
    But, wait…. He is also more like an evangelical christian and is against immigrants, even though he was born in Canada and his father is Cuban, how does that fly?

    John McAfee may not be libertarian enough for some of the people in the party, just like Donald Trump is not conservative enough for a wing of the Republican party and Hillary isn’t liberal enough for many democrats. The thing we should all be thankful for is that we have the power to choose. Our elections may be rigged for two parties right now, but that was not always the case. Down ticket many of the other parties get candidates elected. We the people let it get to this point and we the people need to fix the system. I am thankful for the Libertarian Party and their ability to embrace someone who may not be “one of their own” as it were.

    I was the person who volunteered to work on Ballot Access for Cyber Party. Your Mr. Winger is the foremost authority on the subject. The Libertarians have done more to secure fair ballot access laws and fight the bad ones than any other party. I would have been standing on the shoulders of Giants. Yes, I did the math and knew that the task before me was daunting. I was willing to pour heart and soul into it because I believe we need change. And I believe we the people need to take back our country.

    John isn’t complicated. He stands for the government leaving us all the hell alone as long as we aren’t hurting anyone. Don’t take anyone’s stuff. Open your eyes and realize that we are already in a Cyberwar and have been for years. We need smart people who will set aside the petty disagreements and get shit done.

    The Speaker of the House has more actual power than the President. The President can’t abolish the IRS. They can’t do a whole lot of the government cutting back that the true Libertarians demand. Anything having to do with money starts in the House. It’s a shame they don’t teach the constitution in school anymore.

    To get this country more in line with Libertarian ideals, you need to start lower than President. Get some Congress Critters, especially of the House variety that have an [L] next to their name and we just might be able to start working on healing our nation. There is so much overlap between the parties that there is plenty of common ground to come together over.

    John McAfee may not be the TRUE Libertarian candidate you want, he is the Candidate that you NEED. He has done more to highlight the Libertarian Party as not just about legalizing drugs and taking away “entitlements”. He has shown a different side of the Libertarian movement and kept you in the news cycle pretty much every day.

    I will end with, Isn’t it wonderful that we live in a democracy where none of us is facing house arrest or jail for saying how we feel. We can criticize our own government without fear of disappearing, like people in some countries just disappear. Our press is free. I can go to the church of my choosing or none at all without consequence.

    One nice thing about John McAfee is, he values all opinions, no matter where they come from. Send an email to the campaign if there is an issue you feel strongly about. State your case. Make a difference. DO or DO NOT, there is no TRY. Seriously, how many of you, Andy I am laser focused on you, have actually tried to start a dialogue with him about his platform? In the end, if he is chosen as the candidate at convention, he will run on the party’s platform anyway moving forward into the general election. Help him understand instead of sitting at your computer bad mouthing him. Now is not the time for party in-fighting. The Republicans will have enough of that after their primaries are over. The Libertarian Party needs to come at this election as a united and strong party that I know is in there.

    ….Shivany steps down off her soap box, bet you didnb’t know I was this short did ya, and waits for the backlash. I am a level 60 elf hunter with decent armor so let it fly!!

  30. Andy

    Shivany Lane said: “The President can’t abolish the IRS. They can’t do a whole lot of the government cutting back that the true Libertarians demand. Anything having to do with money starts in the House. It’s a shame they don’t teach the constitution in school anymore.”

    The President could call a press conference, and expose the IRS as being a fraud, and the President could encourage people to not pay the income tax, and the President could grant pardons to anyone that the IRS goes after for not filing.

    The President could veto any government spending that is not specifically authorized in the Constitution. Sure, Congress could override the President’s veto, but at least there’d be a President who’d be fighting for reducing the size of government.

    The President could take the guns away from all of the Secret Service members who guard the members of Congress. The President could tell them that their Secret Service body guards will get their guns back after they repeal every unconstitutional gun law on the books, and every other unconstitutional law for that matter.

  31. Andy

    Shivany Lane said: “Help him understand instead of sitting at your computer bad mouthing him.”

    What you call “badmouthing” I call vetting a candidate.

    I don’t think that we should just give our party’s nomination to just anybody.

  32. Andy

    Here is a recent interview with John McAfee from Infowars.com. Good interview overall, but McAfee makes a few inaccurate statements (like saying that Ross Perot was only on 37 ballots, when in reality, Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC in both 1992 and 1996).

    This video may may deserve its own article.

    Libertarian Party candidate for President John McAfee: Our government is a criminal organization

  33. Robert Capozzi

    Langa, so I think I get your point now. Tell me if this is an accurate summary:

    THE L position on any issue is to abolish all NAP-violating government, which means abolition of all government.

    A true L can support a candidate who advocates less government, but that candidate is NOT a true L taking the true L position. A true L could even support minor directional deviations that a candidate advocates, preferably downplaying any deviations.

    Correct?

    Do you share the sense that strong majorities of the LP are not abolitionist anarchists, meaning that they are not “true” Ls?

  34. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    langa,

    Yeah, we’re on the same page now vis a vis “marginal improvement.”

    Getting rid of TSA would be a great thing. Using the money from it to pay for ODT would be a bad thing. But I don’t think it would be nearly as bad as TSA, at least on a day-to-day basis, simply because its mission wouldn’t involve putting physical hands on millions of people every day.

  35. George Phillies

    “THE L position on any issue is to abolish all NAP-violating government, which means abolition of all government.”

    As usual, wrong.

  36. Robert Capozzi

    gp, OK, what is Langa’s view then?

    Based on this thread, it seems Langa believes there is THE position and then there are supportable positions if they are directionally correct.

    Plumblinery doesn’t make sense to me, but I’m open-minded enough to review and reconsider it again.

  37. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp Post author
    March 2, 2016 at 06:52

    langa,

    Yeah, we’re on the same page now vis a vis ‘marginal improvement.’

    Getting rid of TSA would be a great thing. Using the money from it to pay for ODT would be a bad thing. But I don’t think it would be nearly as bad as TSA, at least on a day-to-day basis, simply because its mission wouldn’t involve putting physical hands on millions of people every day.”

    What if it led to more government spying, or what if it led to the government launching cyber attacks against Americans, say people that government officials do not like for whatever reason?

  38. Thane Eichenauer

    “What if it led to more government spying”

    I have the urge to say there can’t be more government spying but I imagine the manifestation would be for the powers that be being more willing to act on the spying like North Korea.

Leave a Reply

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