John McAfee: Gary Johnson is ‘Libertarian in Name Only’; I’m not endorsing him

Jeff 4 Justice, a third party party oriented vlogger and creator of the No More 2 Party System channel, uploaded a new video on August 3rd featuring former Libertarian Party presidential candidate John McAfee (Transcript below):

Jeff 4 Justice: I’m Jeff 4 Justice and I’m here with John McAfee who just got finished running with the Libertarian Party, you ran for president, and Gary Johnson of course got the nomination. After not getting the nomination, do you still support the Libertarian Party – are you still interested in helping this nation move past the two party system?

John McAfee: Well I’m definitively interested in helping move past the two party system. What I’m doing is I’m supporting the grassroots in the Libertarian Party. I have abondoned the Libertarian Party leadership, and instead I’m working with people running for mayor, for state legislature, for dog catcher, for sheriff. Why? Because we can do something there.

Jeff 4 Justice: Are you not endorsing Gary Johnson?

John McAfee: I’m not endorsing Gary Johnson..let me tell you why. I predicted what would happen – with Gary Johnson we would compromise – and have we not? They ask Gary Johnson in the town hall, ‘what about gun control?’ He says ‘I think we have, the system we have is sufficient.’ Well oh my Lord, please, please. But this is what happens when you get into the political process, into the campaign, you have to compromise because your managers and the people that backed you with money say ‘well, you have to have a chance of winning.’ We’re not gonna win. We’re Libertarians, not this year.

Jeff 4 Justice: It’s interesting to see what’s happening with the Libertarian Party. I think a lot of Libertarians feel that its been co-opted by establishment – I thin some people would call Gary Johnson and Bill Weld LINOs -Libertarian in Name Only, perhaps. Would you go that far?

John McAfee: They are definitively Libertarian in Name Only. I mean, good heavens. Weld actually wants to limit the number of rounds we can put in a magazine, does not think assault rifles should be available – if the assault rifles are available to the criminals, how am I going to protect myself with a handgun? Please.

Jeff 4 Justice: Absolutely. And I’ll share with you that I’m a gay man, and of course we all know what just happened in Orlando. And I don’t want to be used as a pawn to take away Second Amendment or -and we have the right to bear arms regardless of what’s written in paper regardless anyway, but –

John McAfee: Whatever your sexual orientation is, or whatever your color, or whatever your age for that matter-

Jeff 4 Justice: And let me tell ya-

John McAfee: If your father says I’ve trained you, I think you’re okay to have a .22 rifle, have a .22 rifle.

Jeff 4 Justice: Let me tell you, if an economic collapse happens or some sort of major societal breakdown happens, do you think I only want the anti-gay militias and the thugs to have the guns? We want a little protection, too.

John McAfee: Everybody, everybody. So no, Bill Weld and Gary Johnson have become liberal Republicans. And they have abandoned the party and the principles that we stand for. Good Lord, what Libertarian is going to say “well, I think we should restrict the right to own guns. And when Governor Johnson said ‘Yeah, I think it’s okay with the restrictions that we have, including President Obama’s illegal act of making it a crime for you or me to sell a gun to somebody else without an FAA license.

Jeff 4 Justice: Thank you so much, nice to meet you and good luck with your future efforts.

(Via American Third Party Report)

 

50 thoughts on “John McAfee: Gary Johnson is ‘Libertarian in Name Only’; I’m not endorsing him

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    Not as crushed as you’re going to be when Johnson doesn’t perform up to your expectations.

    I do hope you hang around, though. There’s going to be a lot of work to do rebuilding the party.

  2. Andy

    Way to go John McAfee!

    I endorsed Darryl W. Perry for President, and i voted for Perry on both ballots, but I had planned to vote for John McAfee if the nomination voting had gone for more ballots, and if Perry had been eliminated. It looks like McAfee would have been a good choice.

    I am glad to see that McAfee is sticking around the party, and that he is helping out the real Libertarians who are running for lower level offices.

  3. Anthony Dlugos

    Mr. Knapp,

    Oh, I’ll be hanging around all right. I’m just not as worried about the amount of damage GovJohnson might do. He doesn’t speak for the libertarian philosophy, he’s just a guy running for a job. The philosophy is stronger than that. Plus, it helps that he comes off as a generally nice guy, which limits any damage he might do (in the eyes of the American public).

    Frankly, I don’t even think he’s a great pragmatic candidate. He’s just the best option we had in Orlando, as you know I believe.

  4. AMcCarrick

    After this election membership will fall to less than 1000 nationwide and they’ll have zero funding. They’ll be forced to go to all volunteer operations or completely fold. Nearly all state affiliates are destined to close…. All because you have a bunch of brain-dead morons (this website is full of those very people) that run and/or are “members” of the party for the past 40 years, and had and still have no clue on how to get a party seats.

    I have finally come to the conclusion it isn’t a lack of media coverage or funding, it is truly gross incompetence of the “membership” of this party. That is the precise reason I’ve run in the other direction and will never call myself a “libertarian” again. Minarchist, sure, Classical Liberal, sure… The term Libertarian needs to be struck from the dictionary; it means absolutely nothing, seeing as how if you ask 100 different people what it means you get 150 different answers.

    People clearly learned their lesson after electing a few LP members back in the 90s/00s. It’ll never happen again. The LP is forever dead because of internal bickering and a complete disregard for the Dallas Accord, and this election will prove that. So good luck to the people who stick around…. you’re really just beating a dead horse at this point.

  5. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    AMcCarrick: the LP is dead within 4 years anyway; unless Johnson wins.

    Nonsense. The LP has survived for 40+ years at mostly under 1% of the vote nationally. No reason why it can’t survive another 40 years at 1%.

    The LP was never, primarily, a “vote getting” political party. It never required votes to survive. It was always, primarily, a social club of true believers. Like it or not, that’s the truth.

  6. langa

    You’re right. The Dallas Accord is dead. It said that anarchists and minarchists are supposed to coexist in the LP. But the current position of many in the LP seems to be that anarchists are to be tolerated, but only if they agree to be hidden away in the attic like some crazy uncle, and they should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to represent the party, nor should they be seriously considered as candidates.

  7. langa

    Oh, and good for McAfee. I’m glad to see that he is sticking around the LP, and that he, unlike the nominee, is standing up for actual libertarian principles.

  8. George Phillies

    “After this election membership will fall to less than 1000 nationwide and they’ll have zero funding. ”

    Givne the number of life members, that’s not even possible.

    ” you have a bunch of brain-dead morons” It takes one to know one, so perhaps you did not mean that.

  9. Richard Winger

    Anyone who wants to be a Libertarian candidate for congress can easily do so. If anarchists feel they are not being allowed to be candidates, they just aren’t paying attention. The Libertarian Party only has nominees in about one-third of the US House districts. In many states there were plenty of slots open that didn’t even require a petition, although often a filing fee is needed.

    There are no real residency requirements to run for US House. Courts have let people run for US House in states they don’t live in, because the US Constitution only says that the candidate must live in the state on election day, and filing deadlines are usually months before election day.

  10. George Dance

    Sounds like McAfee is laying the groundwork for his 2020 run. Assuming the Trump campaign implodes (meaning no competition for the “celebrity outsider” role) and the Libertarians end with between 5-10% of the vote (meaning public financing), he’ll be in a good position, if he can get the nomination. Dumping on Johnson will give him the Perry vote, but those extra 70 delegates, added onto his 150, certainly won’t be enough. To have a realistic chance, he’s got to start now to start planting obs on the rank and file, and it looks like he realizes just that.

  11. itdoesntmatter

    I wonder who’s really trying to kill the party: The candidates who’ve made the ultimate sin of doing politics and not purposely turning off the 99.9% of the voters who aren’t members of the libertarian top 1% pure elite who believe anyone who uses US currency and has a driver’s license is “not libertarian enough.”

    Or the libertarian activists who will jump on any ballot line no matter how unprincipled or unorganized just to run against the LP every election cycle, and would seriously support someone like Darryl Perry running during the first election in modern history where both major party candidates are widely disliked and the media is going out of its way to cover 3rd party candidates.

  12. steve m

    Richard is worth listening to. One of my disappointments this election is that one anarchist that was running has decided to leave his signs in the garage. Oh well.

  13. Anthony Dlugos

    George,

    I’ll bet you nutty McAfee is not even in the party in 2020. Care to wager?

  14. Brad

    McAfee who? Who cares. I’d rather talk to the zombie corpse of John Tower at this point (if it were possible, of course).

  15. Nicholas Sarwark

    After this election membership will fall to less than 1000 nationwide and they’ll have zero funding. They’ll be forced to go to all volunteer operations or completely fold. Nearly all state affiliates are destined to close…. All because you have a bunch of brain-dead morons (this website is full of those very people) that run and/or are “members” of the party for the past 40 years, and had and still have no clue on how to get a party seats.

    Would you like to make a bet? You name the stakes.

  16. dL

    “The term Libertarian needs to be struck from the dictionary; it means absolutely nothing,”

    In ten words:

    Politics: The state is its own agency
    Social/Moral: Live and let live

    Or a more succinct summary in five words:
    “Don’t need your f*ckin permission”

    “The LP is forever dead because of internal bickering and a complete disregard for the Dallas Accord”

    The Dallas Accord was brokered co-toleration of Objectivists(minarchists) and Anarchists. It did not specify a toleration of law and order republicanism(represented by the likes of William Weld).

    “run and/or are “members” of the party for the past 40 years, and had and still have no clue on how to get a party seats.”

    The fundamental problem is one basic political science. Plurality, majority winner take all voting systems scientifically result in a political duopoly. No way around that. If you want a competitive multi-party political system, you need to change the voting system. In a multi-party scenario, it would make sense for the LP to be a more moderate party(with a central core of issues). Sans that, the best way to kill a 3rd party over time is to sell out to “celebrity” LINOs. Particularly, to sell out for nothing to GOP carpetbagging.

    Last thought: GOP carpetbagging could kill the LP. But it wouldn’t kill the libertarian movement. The thing that could permanently damage to the libertarian movement is the paleoconservative, peckerwood populism masquerading under the guise of anarcho-capitalism, operating under the edicts of the Ayatollah of property, Hans Hoppe. Credit to the LP for the most part to being hitherto resistant to that ugly infectious strain.

  17. Joe

    Richard Winger @ August 18, 2016 at 21:17

    “There are no real residency requirements to run for US House.”

    Is it possible then (and/or legal) to run for the US House in two or more states simultaneously?

  18. Tony From Long Island

    I have two words . . . SOUR GRAPES . . . . then I yawn and fall asleep, which is how McAfee sounds when he is speaking anyway.

    Mr Phillies: ” . . . .“After this election membership will fall to less than 1000 nationwide and they’ll have zero funding. ” . . . . Given the number of life members, that’s not even possible. . . . ”

    Life members do not have to pay anything to the party. They pay once, get their coveted life membership and then . . . So using them as a defense to the proposition that the LP will have “zero funding” after this election doesn’t hold water. How much money did Bob Barr give the party in the last seven years?

    I don’t agree that the party will be empty and destitute after this election, but your response to that point isn’t a strong one.

  19. Bondurant

    You assume that lifetime members no longer donate. I’d wager they do. Lifetime members tend to have more disposableincome. Heck, I used to send money and I don’t have much to spare.

  20. Shawn Levasseur

    That McAfee is actually still in the LP is far more than I expected of him. His non-endorsement for me really doesn’t sting. It’s more of a shrug and “oh well,” reaction out of me.

  21. ATBAFT

    I shudder at what the 2020 nomination contest will look like if there’s federal money to be had for the campaign.

    I laugh at the criticism of the LP that basically says “you’ve failed for 40 years to grow beyond 1%” when it comes from a so-called “real” libertarian who doesn’t realize that the American voters reject hard-core libertarianism and even the watered-down stuff being peddled by Johnson/Weld. You can’t have it both ways, folks.

  22. Andy

    A good 1/3 of the population is “married” to the idea of big government. These people will never support us no matter what we do, and if anything, they will actively try to destroy us.

    Approximately 1/3 of the population is what I call the apathetic middle. These are people who are disinterested in politics and just go with the flow. If they vote at all, they just vote for whomever their heard is voting, but a lot of them do not vote. These people may not actively oppose us, but they will not do anything to help us either.

    This leaves around 1/3 of the population that is actually open to what we have to say, but even with these people a lot of them do not vote, while others “hold their nose” and vote for whomever they consider to be the lesser of two evils.

    So our target audience is at best only 1/3 of the population. This does not mean that it is impossible for us to win, because if we could rally 1/3, or even 1/4, or 1/5 of the population to our side, we could radically change things for the better, but it will take a lot of money and a lot of hard work to have any chance of doing this.

    Watering down our message to the point where it trickles off in non-libertarian directions, and kissing up to the ruling establishment, to try to win over people who are the least likely to ever support us is a losing strategy.

  23. Andy

    ATBAFT brought up a great point about what will likely happen if the LP receives millions of dollars from the federal government. It may seem like a good thing at first, but do not be surprised if the money attracts more non-libertarian mercenary huckster con-artists who are looking to line their pockets (than it already does), and/or use the LP’s ballot line for their own purposes, which may have little or nothing to do with promoting libertarianism (more than the party attracts now). Also, what will all of this cost the party in terms of credibility? It could be a lot.

    It is unfortunate that there are people in the LP who want to try to take what appears to be the easy way out by continually running washed up Republicans who really are not that libertarian, if they are libertarian at all, and by trying to qualify to receive money from the government, rather than doing all of the hard work that needs to be done to build an actual libertarian movement.

  24. Tony From Long Island

    ATBAFT: ” . . . . .I laugh at the criticism of the LP that basically says “you’ve failed for 40 years to grow beyond 1%” when it comes from a so-called “real” libertarian who doesn’t realize that the American voters reject hard-core libertarianism and even the watered-down stuff being peddled by Johnson/Weld. You can’t have it both ways, folks. . . . ”

    Reject? Are you kidding? You have to realize that no matter what you do, the very large majority of Americans just will NOT vote for someone not REP or DEM. Gov. Johnson will have the largest vote total for a non DEM or REP since probably 1992 and that is without the money Billionaire Perot had at his disposal.

    So for that 20% who would be open to voting for an “other”, Gov. Johnson may receive the vote of half of them, hopefully more. I agree somewhat with Andy’s post about the 1/3, but I think that when it comes down to it, it’s more like 1/5. I just disagree with him about how to attract those voters.

    Johnson / Weld are pragmatic rather than dogmatic. Dogmatic would repulse people, as it has for the last 40 years. Do you REALLY think Creepy Perry would be at even 1% in the polls???

  25. ATBAFT

    Tony, yes “reject.” I challenge you to remove the DEM and REP and LIB from the candidates’ names, just show the standard policies each espouses (with the LIB showing hard core positions) and see if, in fact, the LIB candidate isn’t thoroughly rejected without being identified with a party. I think that if every voter could be exposed to the hard core LP positions, less than 1% would agree. If the LP wants to be an educational organization, then go to it. Tons of money, tons of hard work and, maybe, in 50 more years the needle can be moved to 2% (barring catastrophic financial collapse or armed revolution).

  26. Tony From Long Island

    ATBAFT: ” . . . . I challenge you to remove the DEM and REP and LIB from the candidates’ names, just show the standard policies each espouses (with the LIB showing hard core positions) and see if, in fact, the LIB candidate isn’t thoroughly rejected without being identified with a party . . . ”

    I’m with you on that. I left the LP because of the “hard core” blinders-wearers. However, I don’t think the public would reject pragmatic libertarianism. They are not rejecting Gov. Johnson. I think he is doing remarkably well for someone who is not a D or R.

  27. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    They are not rejecting Gov. Johnson. I think he is doing remarkably well for someone who is not a D or R.

    Voters are not choosing Johnson or libertarianism. They’re rejecting Clinton and Trump, and Johnson just happens to be some other guy standing over there.

    I’m sure that for many voters, Johnson is a “safe protest vote” because he can’t win. If they thought Johnson might win, they’d take a closer look. Whereupon some might continue to support Johnson, but some not.

  28. Anthony Dlugos

    Andy,

    Federal moneys has very little to do with the reality that voters are not going to entrust the Presidency, or any other public office, for that matter, to the catastrophically unqualified. This reality changes NOT AT ALL when we understand that Libertarians are not arguing for the status quo, (in which case experience in office may not matter as much in a relative sense), but what would be the largest managed bankruptcy in human history. Voters are not going to turn that job over (if they ever even want it) to people whose libertarian bona fides are intact. They dont care about philosophy, nor should they. That may be what you write in your fantasyland screenplays, but it’s not how things work in the real world. This isn’t a sim game .

  29. Andy

    Voters are already voting for some of the least qualified people around, as in typical Democrat and Republican politicians, as in the very people who created this mess.

  30. George Phillies

    “Mr Phillies: ” . . . .“After this election membership will fall to less than 1000 nationwide and they’ll have zero funding. ” . . . . Given the number of life members, that’s not even possible. . . . ”

    Life members do not have to pay anything to the party. They pay once, get their coveted life membership and then . . . So using them as a defense to the proposition that the LP will have “zero funding” ”

    There are more than 2000 life members. Membership simply cannot fall to “…less than 1000 nationwide…”.

  31. Andy

    Unless the current Life Members die, or they call the party and ask to have their Life Membership revoked.

    I know that some of the people with Life Memberships are no longer active in the party, and some have not been active in quite some time.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp

    “voters are not going to entrust the Presidency, or any other public office, for that matter, to the catastrophically unqualified”

    They’ve done so regularly, every four years, for more than 200 years now. What makes you think that’s suddenly going to change?

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    The catastrophically unqualified as they see it, not as you see it.

    As we’ve discussed before, presidents, and even losing presidential candidates, virtually always have previous elective office experience, very frequently governorships. The rare exceptions, like Eisenhower, have other substantial leadership experience.

    I’m not sure where this idea arose in the LP that, because a president in a libertarian world would have a much smaller role in our lives, with much fewer responsibility and much less power, we can nominate a candidate fit for that hypothetical position, rather than a candidate for the position and job we want him or her to undertake, as it exists in this reality. The only thing I can think of is that many folks in the LP think each president starts with a blank slate, carte blanche, and complete power to remake the federal government into libertopia.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that, if the American people actually do sign on to the collosal managed bankruptcy I previously referred to, they are actually going to require more…not less…of that person. It’s easy to kick the can down the road, a lot harder to effect the sort of change we are suggesting is necessary.

    We can all have a laugh and a drink over the irony that erstwhile statists are the ones who ended up dismantling leviathan, but then they are the only ones who are gonna be trusted with the job.

    Then, we can nominate “pure” libertarians to our hearts content.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    Here’s the gamble:

    If Johnson/Weld win the election, I guess I wouldn’t say that was a bad thing as such things go. That is, I’d rather have them than Trump/Pence or Clinton/Kaine, just like I’d rather have an outbreak of eczema than stage 4 lymphoma or ALS. And if they do win, I guess radical libertarians are going to have to find another word to use for what we believe because in American politics “libertarianism” will mean “Johnson/Weldism” for the foreseeable future.

    If Johnson/Weld don’t live up to anywhere near expectations (say they poll 2% or less, but that number’s just a guess), there’s a chance that the LP might reevaluate what it’s been doing for the last 10 years and consider trying something different.

    In between those two extremes, if Johnson/Weld don’t win but do get past 5%, then the LP has the Pat Buchanan problem. Every grifter in the universe will descend on the party’s 2020 national convention seeking that multi-million-dollar welfare check. And that’s going to be a problem. It MAY not destroy the LP as quickly or as thoroughly as it destroyed the Reform Party — the LP has had a lot more time to build permanent organizations at the state level and that will hopefully mitigate the collapse and facilitate the rebuilding — but it’s probably going to be a disaster at least for a bit, especially given the LP’s record for three presidential election cycles of dropping its panties and spreading its legs for whichever candidate most convincingly screams “I’m FAMOUS! You think you’ve HEARD of me somewhere! Nominate me and we’ll WIN! Go, Librari … er, Laborato … er, which party am I scamming this time?”

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I’m not sure where this idea arose in the LP that, because a president in a libertarian world would have a much smaller role in our lives, with much fewer responsibility and much less power, we can nominate a candidate fit for that hypothetical position, rather than a candidate for the position and job we want him or her to undertake, as it exists in this reality.”

    And I’m not sure where you got the idea that either one of those options is the primary consideration.

    The Libertarian Party runs presidential candidates for reasons.

    One of those reasons — the most minor end-stage reason — is the possibility that its presidential candidates will win. But that will only matter when and if the Libertarian Party has already accomplished its OTHER purposes, which in toto amount to creating the world you mention in which the president would indeed play the role we envision for him or her.

    If the Libertarian Party elects the next 10 presidents and drops them into the existing system, all we are doing is fucking around instead of getting to work on the actual job.

  36. Anthony Dlugos

    Well, I agree we’ll have a damn interesting convention in 2020 if we get the 5%, and I’ll concede the party might end up doing the wrong thing at that point. I’ll hope and work for the best.

    We’ll see.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    “He’ll soon be hanging out on the beach in Venezuela with 6 naked teenagers and $10 million of investor cash.”

    Beats climbing the highest mountain on every continent, especially without any naked teenagers to keep you company.

  38. George Dance

    Art Dlugos: “George, I’ll bet you nutty McAfee is not even in the party in 2020. Care to wager?”

    Not yet. I’m also expecting the party to get 5-10% of the vote this time; less than that, and there’s no point in McAfee sticking around. I’m also expecting him to be as intelligent as those who seem to know him tend to say he is; that could be wrong, too.

  39. robert capozzi

    tk: all we are doing is fucking around instead of getting to work on the actual job.

    me: When I played for the Cato softball team in the mid 80s, we had a rallying cry: 2,4, 6, 8. Organize to smash the State.”

    Is that the “actual job”?

  40. Austin Cassidy

    “Beats climbing the highest mountain on every continent, especially without any naked teenagers to keep you company.”

    Unless you’re one of the investors getting ripped off to finance it.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Is that the ‘actual job?'”

    I’m guessing that when you played on that softball team, the umpires learned the rules from a book of rules for softball, and that if they had decided to just arbitrarily drop those rules in favor of the rules for making Jello Instant Pudding, you’d have though they were nuts.

    The party’s actual job is defined in its rulebook (“Bylaws of the Libertarian Party”). I know you object to how that rulebook was written, but the party’s national convention delegates have ratified it over and over and over for decades without modifications to change the job itself.

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    Austin,

    I’ll be interested to find out whether or not McAfee is actually the con man you think he is. If so, I guess he’ll go down in history as “that other con man, the one the Libertarians didn’t nominate for president in 2012.”

  43. dL

    “He’ll soon be hanging out on the beach in Venezuela with 6 naked teenagers and $10 million of investor cash.”

    Beats climbing the highest mountain on every continent, especially without any naked teenagers to keep you company.”

    🙂

  44. Pingback: John McAfee Is Running for President, but He Doesn't Want Your Vote · 71 Republic

Leave a Reply

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