This article originally appeared here at Freedom Gulch. The original article contains a great many useful links and is worth reading in its original form. Freedom Gulch gave permission for this reprinting.
In #Libertarian social media circles lately, it’s been hard to avoid Austin Petersen and the debate around his rejection of the Nonaggression Principle (NAP). Carl Loser and Remso Martinez have traded a few barbs here on Freedom Gulch. It’s actually been a welcome break from the infighting around Rand Paul, but, now that I think about it, it’s probably the same people stirring the pot.
It’s my feeling that all of this discussion is completely irrelevant. I’m okay with Petersen. He’s got a lot of plusses: he’s young, he’s comfortable in front of a camera, he’s got connections. None of the other declared LP presidential candidates have those things going for them. He’s got a great team with him: Remso, Ashley Edwards, Rachel Mills.
I can even forgive him for not being “Libertarian enough” in his policy – remember that Gary Johnson is a fair tax guy.
The campaign’s been good on social media and the Facebook livestreams they’re doing deserve recognition. We shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves with praise though. This is not a strong field right now. Just because he’s the best, doesn’t mean he’s good.
The hashtag #AP4LP2016 is clunky and unusable. The 2016 is implied, dude, nobody thinks you’re running in 2020 (#AP4LP communicates everything you need to get across, it’s balanced and better aesthetically, plus it’s shorter and easier to type). And there might have been a time when it was a good idea to use @the_producer14 as a twitter handle, but that time is not while you’re running for president.
The centerpiece of the social media campaign, though, is this incoherent rejection of the NAP. It just really doesn’t make any sense to me. When Austin spoke at the LPNOVA Convention, he brought this up without any prompting. In what way is rejecting a fundamental tenet of the party going to help win you votes at the convention? The Republicans and Democrats understand that you campaign to your voters, and up until the nomination, that means party members. It’s no different here. Petersen thinks he’s campaigning against Hillary Clinton.
Other people must have been confused too, because he did an NAP livestream in trademark listicle style:
6 Reasons Libertarians Must Oppose the Non-aggression PrincipleTop 6 Reasons to Oppose the Non Aggression Principle
Posted by Austin Petersen on Tuesday, December 29, 2015
It’s kind of a weird video, and it starts with him saying that he has no problem with the NAP Pledge. Ok, cool. We’re good then, right? To my knowledge, Petersen has never explicitly called for preemptive strikes on another country or other initiations of force as a matter of policy. So why are we having this discussion?
Because Petersen thinks he’s smarter than you.
The word from the Petersen camp (insofar as I can understand it, and trust me, I really can’t), is that nonaggression is nonresistant pacifism. It’s not. There’s a whole body of literature on nonresistance from Tolstoy on down, and most of it does not encourage political participation. The doctrine of nonresistance denies the efficacy of self-defense; the Libertarian Party and libertarian thinkers have defended self-defense from the beginning.
Boom. Done.
That’s not what the NAP means now and that’s not what it meant ever. In Libertarian Party discussions, we use the Libertarian Party definition: no initiation of force for social or political goals.
But wait, Team Petersen says, what about the SJWs? They call things microaggressions! What about those? People can call things whatever they want. I can call myself king of the world but that doesn’t make it so.
So that brings us to the Han Solo article published here yesterday. Before we get to Han though, it wouldn’t be a Petersen article with out a list and for that, Remso Martinez cites R. Brownell, writing on Petersen’s website:
Parent’s don’t have the right to starve their children. What? Huh? Seriously? This is a reason to get rid of the NAP?
Polluting could be considered an act of aggression regardless of what and where it takes place. No, pollution is a property rights issue best mediated through private contract on a fact specific basis.
Hurt feelings could be considered aggression. No, sorry. SJWs don’t get to tell us what we mean when we say aggression.
Libertarians most commonly classify aggression as either a physical act of violence or theft. Yes! Correct! Why are we having this discussion again?
Counterfeiting, according to the NAP, would have to be classified as another form of aggression. If we accept intellectual property, it’s a matter of property rights.
The NAP destroys the classical liberal definition of property rights. Nonaggression on property rights destroys property rights? That’s opposite of what’s true.
The Han Solo story is just as incoherent. By Remso’s own admission, Greedo was threatening Han’s life. Therefore, Han’s use of deadly force was justified in self-defense and was not a violation of the NAP. Full stop.
And the story about your daughter being raped? Yeah, you can use the necessary amount of force to stop the rapist and defend her. That’s covered by self-defense. This is how the NAP works.
I am still not convinced that Petersen or anyone else is really against the NAP. I’ve heard it suggested that this is really an elaborate troll. I’m not sure if that’s true or if he and/or his team just really want to replace their imagined version of the NAP with what we have already. It is keeping his name on the mouths of a lot of Libertarians, though.
The thing is, he’s alienating a lot of central LP activists and people who have been around for a long time. We don’t have a primary in the LP, it’s a convention. This kind of stuff might well get him Republican Facebook likes and YouTube views but who is going to pay the money and get down to Orlando in May? It’s going to be the same people who are always there. They support (and understand) the NAP.
That’s why there’s no reason to get worked up about this. The foundations of the Party are not going to change. It’s not even January yet. The LP candidate getting the most media right now is certifiably insane and probably a murderer.
You know who’s looking real presidential right now? Gary Johnson.
Andy Bakker is the current chair of the Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia and was the 2015 Libertarian Party Candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates in the 46th District. Andy studies at the George Mason University School of Law and likes to ride bikes.
Maybe.
“Propertarianism – The Final Word On Correcting and Completing Non Aggression”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imc_kETTSlQ
via Curt Doolittle – Kiev, Ukraine, Not a Conservative, but a Radical
http://www.propertarianism.com/
Yeah, I’ll just have to allow people to decide for themselves if they think I am lying. It happened a bunch of times and I stand by that from personal recollection. The fact that I don’t want to take considerable time and effort to prove it does not make me a liar.
“And I recall we had other conversations where I pointed out that the GJ12 website boilerplate was just website boilerplate and you and others kept repeating that those were GJ personal positions on the same thread or other threads. I don’t want to try to track down examples, but it happened, and a good deal more than once or twice.”
Well, if you don’t want to track down examples, don’t track down examples. But I can’t recall a single time that I did what you’re saying, so unless you provide an example of it, I’m not going to treat your claim as true.
I agree, and once again that is besides the point.
I don’t agree. I think most of them are well-meaning people who are concerned about a very real problem. I happen to disagree with their solution, but that doesn’t mean that I dislike them as people simply because I disagree on this issue in particular.
And as also previously stated I agree with you on that too, except for the “one being pushed by GJ” part, since he is not necessarily pushing that exact plan…..which was the whole point I was making here.
But yes, I think Randall Paul’s plan on taxes is less terrible than the “fair” tax.
Overall I like GJ better than I do RP the Lesser on the wider range of issues.
The Fair Tax is an existing plan that sucks, with existing supporters that suck.
Rand Paul’s tax plan, while still too watered down for my tastes, is actually better than the one being pushed by Gary Johnson. Rand is calling for a 14.5% flat tax.
Once again for the millionth time…
I agree.
But, he specifically said he does not necessarily agree with the “revenue neutral” part or the welfare scheme (“prebate”) when I talked to him about it. What he wants to start a conversation about is getting rid of the massive tax bureaucracy and complexity of the tax code, which is a whole separate and additional problem to the amount being extorted from taxvictims.
He thinks the “fair” tax is a good place to start that conversation because it’s an existing plan with an existing group of supporters, and because it addresses – I believe very poorly – the biggest argument against the flat rate sales tax, which is that it is regressive. I think the “prebate” is a very poor way to address that problem and Gary is open to discussing that perspective, or was when I talked to him about it.
I do not agree that the “fair” tax is a good place to start a conversation about anything, but nevertheless, “a good place to start a conversation” and supporting the actual exact plan are two very different things, which was my whole entire point.
Why the fuck do we have to repeat this every single god damn time with the same exact people? I really resent this inability to comprehend this simple point which I just said on some people’s part given how many times I have had to tell them. Please understand it now once and for all so I don’t have to repeat it ever again.
Grrrrrrrrr times infinity!
Proposing a tax plan that is just as bad or worse than the present tax system is a lousy way to get a conversation started about cutting taxes.
He was the one who kept insisting that, in speeches that I saw in person, personal conversations, and interviews that were reposted to IPR alike. And I recall we had other conversations where I pointed out that the GJ12 website boilerplate was just website boilerplate and you and others kept repeating that those were GJ personal positions on the same thread or other threads. I don’t want to try to track down examples, but it happened, and a good deal more than once or twice.
Paulie,
I don’t recall any such thing happening. The only dispute I recall on the subject of whether or not Johnson’s stated positions on his web site were his actual positions was with respect to the “Fair” Tax, where you kept insisting that Johnson “just wanted to start a conversation.”
On other issues, such as his transition from supporting universal conscription of business owners as unpaid agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“E-Verify”) to becoming somewhat libertarianish on immigration, I simply accepted that his new positions were his actual positions.
Thanks for clarifying regarding net neutrality.
I’ve shared quite a few times that the positions on the GJ12 website were boilerplate written by campaign staffers while Gary started running for the Republican nomination, aimed primarily at that audience, and were not updated. You and others, iirc, continued to quote from them as if they were indisputably Gary’s own personal positions, as if the idea that they were boilerplate written by campaign staffers (who may have been by that point no longer working on the campaign) was simply incomprehensible.
“a courtesy I don’t recall you extending other past candidates”
I’d be interested in knowing of any past instance in which I would have had reason to believe that a candidate’s web site content didn’t necessarily reflect that candidate’s views, but responded to those views in a manner contrary to that belief.
Generally when I look at the web site of a candidate — whether I support or oppose that candidate — I also look at the candidate’s past statements and actions to see if those statements and actions match the campaign’s characterization of the candidate. And I generally bring up mis-matches that I find.
In this particular case, unlike most, McAfee’s past statements seem a LOT more libertarian than his campaign web site issues positions. That’s what led me to the conclusion that if the web site platform was revised to match what seemed to be his actual views, he could be a pretty good pick for the presidential nomination in terms of representing the LP’s platform.
Vis a vis McAfee on net neutrality:
pf: a courtesy I don’t recall you extending other past candidates.
me: Puzzlin’, ain’t it….
Paulie,
You might want to look up what McAfee means by “net neutrality.” He has SPECIFICALLY excluded any government regulation from that equation.
The interview with Doherty certainly does not make it seem like he is an anarchist, even if you accept that the website positions are not his genuine views – a courtesy I don’t recall you extending other past candidates. And I’m surprised you are not put off by his strong support for net neutrality, which you have criticized other candidates and parties for supporting in very strong terms in the past.
“I’ve always found that credibility is enhanced when one admits to obvious mistakes.”
And yet you routinely refuse to act on your finding.
If you “think” it’s been established that McAfee is not an an anarchist, what you’re doing isn’t “thinking.”
That’s an obvious mistake.
I’ve always found that credibility is enhanced when one admits to obvious mistakes.
It appears, TK, that you have a different experience.
Bob,
No, I don’t care to revise my statement.
tk, at 755 you said JMc is an “anarchist.” I think it’s been established he isn’t. I do think it’s fair to say he has an outlaw persona, which is not the same as an anarchist, as I understand those terms.
Do you care to revise your statement from 755?
Bob,
I don’t see how considering McAfee my third choice behind NOTA and Perry, IF he revises his platform to be more in line with the LP’s, indicates that my judgment is “colored.”
And yes, I do like McAfee’s “outlaw persona.” Robert Anton Wilson and Hunter S. Thompson are dead. Julian Assange is Australian and therefore ineligible. Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning are too young, the former in exile and the latter in prison. McAfee strikes me as a reasonably proxy for those people, all of whom would, if they ran on thoroughly libertarian platforms, make great candidates for the LP’s purposes.
So what? He wasn’t a donor those years but he was and is a member. In fact he has probably been a member longer than anyone else with even a remote chance of getting the nomination and not turning it down. And even if you only count the years he wasn’t dues-lapsed, he is still among the most long-standing LP members likely to be seeking the nomination and likely to get more than one delegate vote for it. Plus, like you said, he has been referred to as a libertarian, small l, for decades now, unlike most of the other crossovers.
I’d say that he missed a lot of years of not paying membership dues.
Both separately, and it may have been more years than that as a dues paying member, as well as 4+ years now in the latest stint. However, technically he has been a member that whole entire time since the 1980s since he never revoked his membership pledge, he just missed a few years of dues payments here and there.
I’m not a big Gary Johnson fan, but at least he had been an LP member for a year or two in the 1980’s and/or early 1990’s, and at least he had been known as a small “l” libertarian foryears before seeking the LP presidential nomination.
McAfee reminds me of Jesse Ventura. Both have some libertarian views, but neither are consistent enough as to where I’d really want them to be LP candidates, and I say this as someone who likes Jesse Ventura more than a lot of the other regular posters here do.
He’s not an anarchist. I was really disappointed with the host of Anarchast not to be more discerning.
Tom I posted this link to a one year old RT interview with JMc. Scroll to 830.
These simply aren’t the words of an “anarchist.” (As a lessarchist, btw, I’m OK with what he says here.)
Perhaps he’s had a recent epiphany and he’s recently been visited by the ghost of Lysander Spooner.
Or, maybe, you like McAfee’s outlaw persona and anarcho-L lean on SOME things. And now you rationalize his deviationism with the hope that he’ll change his long-held positions to secure the nomination.
Personally, I find his media skills to be better than GJ’s and not as compelling as Ventura’s. But your dislike for former R pols as the LP’s standardbearer is coloring your judgment. I like GJ’s resume and edgy positioning far more than the other 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCePM3FGx-4
I listened to that Anarchast broadcast.
I don’t think he understands what an anarchist is.
WTF,
I concur
Mr. Knapp,
My apologies as always if my poor grasp of English made that unclear. By “we” I mean those of us reading this discussion, and by “must” I mean “must, if we are to give any credence whatsoever that the answers you allegedly received mean anything at all.” I am however not actually assuming anything at all.
Every time I start thinking my translation program is really quite good, I get a reply such as the one at 10:31 that disabuse me of that notion. My program misled me to believe that this further clarification would be obvious to a native speaker of English and would not have to be spelled out explicitly. My apologies again.
In the meantime, however, we have a glaring discrepancy between
A) Shivany Lane and a mystery person you don’t wish to identify said that the campaign website’s positions are substantially less libertarian than Mr. McAfee’s actual views and will be revised soon
and
B) Mr. McAfee talked to at least one journalist within the last week or so, defended the views on the website and expanded on them, and not in a libertarian direction (at least on his economic positions).
Neither you nor Mr. McAfee has to explain how A and B can both simultaneously be true, but until and unless someone does, A sounds less credibly authoritative than B to me, and I suspect to some others following this discussion as well.
I do not think that McAfee qualifies as a hardcore libertarian / anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist.
He has no track record for this, and his platform is not inline with this.
The only reason that he is running for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination is because he found out that it would be too difficult to get on the ballot as the Cyber Party candidate.
“we must now assume”
1) I have no idea who this “we” you refer to might include.
2) No, you are not required to assume anything, and would be well-advised to remember the old saying about what happens when you do.
“As I said elsewhere, someone whom I decline to identify.”
My apologies, I must have missed that you said that. OK then, we must now assume that this mystery individual is either Mr. McAfee or legitimately authorized to speak on his behalf, that he or she is telling you the truth, that he or she knows what he or she is talking about, etc. Are you still in touch with this mystery person? If so, would he or she please explain how the answers Mr. McAfee allegedly provided Mr. Doherty make sense if Mr. McAfee’s actual views are substantially more libertarian than what is on his website, given that Mr. Doherty presumably talked directly to Mr. McAfee, and very recently?
“On Social Security, you yourself cited the article with positions you found objectionable, and now you want me to point you to it?”
Mr. Doherty reports that Mr. McAfee told him, among other things that calling for cutting or eliminating Social Security will go nowhere because “a huge voting bloc” is dependent on it, not to mention “if you say you remove it, the people getting checks won’t vote for you and neither will their children and grandchildren” who don’t want to be responsible for them again. (emphasis added). We can allow readers who are willing to follow your link to
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Social_Security.htm
determine themselves whether they believe opposing any and all cuts to SS is not substantially more or less libertarian than the substantial cuts and reforms to the SS system Gov. Johnson called for over the years (not only in 2012, as ontheissues summarizes his statements from throughout his career in public life).
Of course, several other interesting policy questions were discussed in addition to SS in the interview at reason.com.
“Who else has told you that the positions will be substantially revised to be significantly more libertarian?”
As I said elsewhere, someone whom I decline to identify.
On Social Security, you yourself cited the article with positions you found objectionable, and now you want me to point you to it?
“Well, if you want to explain something, feel free to explain that thing.”
I have no explanation for it. Thus far, you, Shivaney Lane, Mr. McAfee, anyone speaking or his behalf, or indeed anyone at all don’t have one either. If one that makes rational sense exists someone please let me know what it is.
“Yes.”
Who else has told you that the positions will be substantially revised to be significantly more libertarian? If that is the case, would they be willing and able to explain the answers Mr. McAfee allegedly provided to Mr. Doherty in their interview, if indeed you are still in contact with the person or persons who told you this?
“Although it should be said, vis a vis Social Security, that McAfee’s position as stated thus far is neither substantially more nor substantially less libertarian than Gary Johnson’s was in 2012.”
Perhaps I haven’t looked closely enough, but I don’t see a statement about SS specifically at https://mcafee16.com/issues/ . Which statements of Mr. McAfee’s are you referring to, for the purpose of comparison, should any readers wish to determine for themselves how the two compare?
Although it should be said, vis a vis Social Security, that McAfee’s position as stated thus far is neither substantially more nor substantially less libertarian than Gary Johnson’s was in 2012.
Quoth Wang Tang-Fu:
“how do we explain”
Well, if you want to explain something, feel free to explain that thing.
“As for these assurances that the public positions on his website will be substantially changed and don’t actually reflect his real views … does that come from any source besides only Shivany Lane?”
Yes.
If that’s the case than how do we explain Mr. McAfee’s statements to Brian Doherty of Reason, which came after the switch to the LP and went well beyond the website boilerplate? See
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/12/brian-doherty-anti-virus-pioneer-john-mcafee-enters-libertarian-party-presidential-race/
And of course you can follow the link back to reason.com to verify that it was transcribed here faithfully should you have any doubts.
As for these assurances that the public positions on his website will be substantially changed and don’t actually reflect his real views, even though he is defending them in recent interview(s) with journalist(s) – does that come from any source besides only Shivany Lane? When Ms. Lane was asked about this on the long recent thread about Mr. McAfee (392 comments at last count) she did not address the substance of the questions, and chose instead to spend quite a bit of time discussing the tone in which they were asked, ridiculing and casting aspersions on libertarian economic views, and promising a new beginning – in short, everything except discussing the substance of those questions. Perhaps you, she, Mr. McAfee himself, or someone from his campaign would address those questions now?
Robert,
No, not “public works, schools, and roads McAfee.”
I didn’t think I was unclear. On one hand, there’s some ghost-written boilerplate on one web site. On the other hand, there’s a long record of public statements that don’t comport with that boilerplate, which I’ve been assured will be fixed. Statements like this:
http://anarchast.com/front/2015/2/2/anarchast-ep-193-john-mcafee-everyone-is-spying-on-you.html
McAfee is an “anarchist”? Public works, schools, and roads McAfee?
“Wow, I am surprised that McAfee would even be in the running for consideration by Tom Knapp. What happened to adherence to the Libertarian platform/philosophy? Also, McAfee is a Johnny-come-lately to the Libertarian Party and movement. I appreciate his pro-freedom stances on cyber security and related issues, but this is not enough to make him a libertarian.”
Well, I’ve been over it before in bits and pieces, but I guess I can put it all together in one post:
1) I am concerned about the non-libertarian boilerplate in his current platform; but
2) Based on listening/reading to his past statements and interviews, I evaluate him as quite libertarian; and
3) I’ve received assurances that his platform will in fact be corrected; and
4) I think it’s about time we ran an anarchist again. We haven’t run one since Harry Browne; and
5) While I am still, at the moment, supporting NOTA, and while Perry is second in my own preferences at the moment, I do like to live in the real world. That means understanding that if McAfee runs a real campaign for the nomination he will be the nominee. So I might as well start working up a good head of personal motivational steam to be supportive of the LP’s presidential candidate.
Andy Bakker makes great points and IMO a very compelling case in the original post.
Robert Capozzi writes above: “AP’s rejection of the NAP seems coherent enough to me”
I can’t say I agree. If Mr. Petersen has addressed the points Mr. Bakker raises in this article in response to his alleged case against the NAP anywhere, I have yet to see it, and would love to be directed to where he does so. As far as I can tell he continually glosses over them.
That’s a good resolution for 2016.
===I agree with your concerns. We have to come out of Orlando united and working well together within the party.===
THAT. I am all about building understandings and alliances. We are already too few in number. I believe the Libertarian philosophy is the best thing going but we have to model that across factional lines.
Thank God this year is almost over!
Amen to that!
I don’t believe he will fill seats, but it is possible. I also don’t see any way that a bad campaign (by any candidate) can help us in the long run. The party needs a candidate in 2016 that does significantly better than the past few runs.
I agree with your concerns. We have to come out of Orlando united and working well together within the party.
Stewart, I don’t believe he will. But let’s go with that. It will be a terrible campaign because such that would be sucked into becoming involved just for that will not for the most part stick around and the Party base activists that he has alienated will tank any successful effort (I am not saying that such is a good strategy, I am speaking of reality). He will have none of the activist base support he would need. And in a way this I predict would lead to a radical resurgence in the LP, which may ultimately, in my perspective be better in the long run.
Though I would prefer an alliance right now between all Libertarians that hold to principles rather than having a big divisive upheaval. But that is all that Petersen brings. Destruction and division.
I make no bones that recognizing that we cannot win, my concern is for the PARTY.
Thank God this year is almost over!
Petersen has a chance if he gets delegates to the convention. That’s always been the way to win an LP nomination.
Kerbel and Perry are also at the top of my list right now, with Kerbel having a slight lead, due to the points made above about Perry.
None of the others are really close. I guess Johnson would be third, but it’s a very distant third.
Andy, I encourage your support for Steve Kerbel. He is not as radical as I would like, but he is a solid libertarian and a Party unifier.
Robert Capozzi> The Knappster is one complicated dude. My sense is he likes to shock and finds shocking attractive.
Having read a large portion of what Thomas Knapp has written I would not agree that he has much if any desire to shock. He desires to inform, inspire and persuade people to examine and adopt libertarian beliefs. I can see if that if all you are judging by is John McAfee that a person might come to your conclusion. Knapp is not the only libertarian that has been favorably impressed by John McAfee.
Lions of Liberty Podcast Ep. 154: John McAfee on Why He Should be President
http://lionsofliberty.com/2015/11/02/154/
Jill, how do you expect a candidate to run a campaign without money, or do you think that Perry will raise lots of money in crypto-currencies and precious metals, even though he has not demonstrated this so far?
Also, he said that if he is able to put together a campaign staff, which he has not done so far, he wants to pay them less than minimum wage. Do you see lots of people lining up to work for less than the minimum wage? I agree that it is not good for campaigns to pay people more than they are worth, but even so, I do not think many people will want to work for less than the minimum wage. Sure, maybe he will get some volunteers who will work for free, and this would be great, but volunteers have a tendency to not be reliable, which is why campaigns hire people.
Being good on issues/philosophy is only part of what it takes to be a good candidate.
I am supporting Perry and Kerbel, in that order.
I do not plan to vote for NOTA, because I do think that it is important for the party to run a candidate for President.
I was not happy with the choices for President at the LP National Convention in 2012, so as a way of protesting, I cast a write in vote for Ron Paul. I also considered writing in Andrew Napolitano, Alex Jones, or Doug Stanhope, but I decided on Ron Paul.
Right now, I am considering voting for Steve Kerbel. He appears to be “libertarian enough,” and he appears to be at least trying to run something that looks like a campaign. I still need to find out more about him though.
If I do not end up voting for Kerbel, and if nobody better materializes, I may end up casting another write in vote. Who would I cast my write in vote for? I am note sure at this time.
I agree with Andy almost completely, in his comment from 17:53. However, I will not be voting NOTA, unless it is obvious who the winner will be, and I decide to use NOTA as a protest vote.
a: I am surprised that McAfee would even be in the running for consideration by Tom Knapp.
me: Agreed. The Knappster is one complicated dude. My sense is he likes to shock and finds shocking attractive. JMc is all that. It might begin to explain the deviationism.
Wow, I am surprised that McAfee would even be in the running for consideration by Tom Knapp. What happened to adherence to the Libertarian platform/philosophy? Also, McAfee is a Johnny-come-lately to the Libertarian Party and movement. I appreciate his pro-freedom stances on cyber security and related issues, but this is not enough to make him a libertarian.
Right now NOTA is actually looking pretty good to me, but if I had to pick a candidate out of the current field, I am leaning toward Steve Kerbel.
I think Darryl Perry is a good guy and a real Libertarian, but only accepting donations in crypto-currencies and precious metals will hamper his fundraising, and he does not appear to have much of a campaign, or much of a plan to have much of a campaign.
I am still hoping some better candidates emerge.
I think Andy Bakker’s main point here – that this AP vs. NAP stuff is pointless – is right on the money. The NAP ain’t going away, at least not in 2016. AP is not attracting LP activist support with that nonsense.
I knew that a lot of newbies and one-timers went to LP National Conventions, but I would have thought that there were more than 150 multi-LP National Convention attendees there.
George, you seem to have a lot of critical comments about lots of LP presidential tickets. Who was your favorite LP candidate for President? If you do not like any of them, just say so.
I think you joined the LP around the same time that I did, which was 1996, right? If not, when did you join?
My favorite LP candidate for President was Harry Browne.
My other favorite candidate for President was Ron Paul, but I was not following him back in 1988 (I was not old enough to vote back then), so I am more familiar with his runs in the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012 (although Ron was still technically a Life Member of the LP during both of those runs).
I’d rate LP candidates for President since I have been in the party like this:
1) Harry Browne (I was an enthusiastic supporter.)
2) Michael Badnarik (I was an enthusiastic supporter.)
3) Gary Johnson (I was only a passive supporter.)
And…..
4) Bob Barr (I was not a supporter.)
If I had to pick a favorite VP candidate since I have been in the party, I’d go with Art Olivier. I do not remember much about Jo Jorgensen, other than that she lived in South Carolina (not sure if she was originally from there or not), and that she appeared to be an acceptable candidate the one or two times I heard her speak.
I have not cared as much for the other VP candidates since I have been in the party.
“who is going to pay the money and get down to Orlando in May? It’s going to be the same people who are always there. ”
That’s totally wrong.
There is a group of people who repeat, convention after convention, but it is a modest minority of convention attendees, about 150 people. Most people attending NatCon have never been there before and will never be to another one. That’s who we have had a long list of losers as Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. That’s why Petersen has a respectable chance.
Someone might try talking sense into Mills.
ab: The centerpiece of the social media campaign, though, is this incoherent rejection of the NAP. It just really doesn’t make any sense to me.
me: AP’s rejection of the NAP seems coherent enough to me, but it IS odd that he makes it a central theme in his pursuit of the nomination. The only thing I can think of is that AP might believe that many in the LP are not NAPsters, but rather people who want a lot more liberty.
NAPster-ism is the Basque of the liberty movement. In Europe but really not European, a kind of isolated enclave.
Perhaps AP is provoking the NAPsters as a means to get attention and to appeal to those Ls who weren’t paying close enough attention to the cryptic meanings embedded in the LP’s foundational docs.
I didn’t even realize Austin Petersen spoke at the LPNOVA convention… not that I could have made it anyway, as it is always timed poorly for me.
Commenting to subscribe.
Right now I favorer Kerbel and Perry as I say every opportunity I get. I don’t support NOTA.
“The LP candidate getting the most media right now is certifiably insane and probably a murderer.”
OK, so you don’t like McAfee. That doesn’t mean you should just make stuff up about him.
“Probably a murderer” implies that there exists some evidence that he’s a murderer. The amount of evidence so far put forward for that proposition is zero, zilch, nada, bupkes, not so much as an iota.
Petersen is a sideshow act. And the next time Johnson looks presidential will be the first time.
As of this moment, I still favor NOTA, followed by Darryl W. Perry, with McAfee closing in fast on both.