McAfee Fleeing US; Will Run Presidential Campaign from a Boat

[wachtwoord]

For McAffee? Really? The guy's completely immoral and borderline insane.

And Trump, Hillary, and Bernie are .... ?

I didn't know you supported any of those?

Just support Rand Paul?

[rkbabang]

For McAffee? Really? The guy's completely immoral and borderline insane.

And Trump, Hillary, and Bernie are .... ?

I didn't know you supported any of those?

Just support Rand Paul?

I don't support anyone.   But if someone must be president, I'd rather it be someone likely to destroy all respect for the office, (the only good thing about Trump) than a half-libertarian mainstream politician like Rand Paul.  Rand Paul wouldn't be able (or willing) to change anything, then everyone would say "See the libertarians had their chance and nothing changed".

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

[Gregmal]

For McAffee? Really? The guy's completely immoral and borderline insane.

And Trump, Hillary, and Bernie are .... ?

I didn't know you supported any of those?

Just support Rand Paul?

I don't support anyone.   But if someone must be president, I'd rather it be someone likely to destroy all respect for the office, (the only good thing about Trump) than a half-libertarian mainstream politician like Rand Paul.  Rand Paul wouldn't be able (or willing) to change anything, then everyone would say "See the libertarians had their chance and nothing changed".

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

Spot on. This is what is obvious but missed by most people. It's why its worth laughing(and easy to) at the "how could you vote for Trump" crowd. Or at the "I'm outraged by Trump" crowd. They're supporting people just as bad if not worse than Trump, they're just too stupid to see it. Trump(or in this case McAfee) is a blatant f you to the entire establishment. He's dirty, rough around the edges, and likely extremely corrupt. The "traditional candidates" and previous presidents, are just slimy, conniving, Trumps who hide it better and have their establishment friends covering it up to keep the jig going. To hell with them all.

[wachtwoord]

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

He would? Isn't he the closest to Libertarian ideals of any mainstream candidate in decades? I would like to know you don't consider him a step in the right direction.

[rkbabang]

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

He would? Isn't he the closest to Libertarian ideals of any mainstream candidate in decades? I would like to know you don't consider him a step in the right direction.

Because he would be able to do nothing as president.  He thinks of himself as a "mainstream" politician and wouldn't rock the boat.   He isn't his dad.  He wouldn't go in there day one and start trying to end the Fed, close all the overseas military bases, and bring all the troops home.   He'd do little of anything that would result in real change.  Ron Paul as president would be a positive, he'd be unstoppable until the military industrial complex simply assassinated him.  Rand Paul, not so much.

[rkbabang]

For McAffee? Really? The guy's completely immoral and borderline insane.

And Trump, Hillary, and Bernie are .... ?

I didn't know you supported any of those?

Just support Rand Paul?

I don't support anyone.   But if someone must be president, I'd rather it be someone likely to destroy all respect for the office, (the only good thing about Trump) than a half-libertarian mainstream politician like Rand Paul.  Rand Paul wouldn't be able (or willing) to change anything, then everyone would say "See the libertarians had their chance and nothing changed".

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

Spot on. This is what is obvious but missed by most people. It's why its worth laughing(and easy to) at the "how could you vote for Trump" crowd. Or at the "I'm outraged by Trump" crowd. They're supporting people just as bad if not worse than Trump, they're just too stupid to see it. Trump(or in this case McAfee) is a blatant f you to the entire establishment. He's dirty, rough around the edges, and likely extremely corrupt. The "traditional candidates" and previous presidents, are just slimy, conniving, Trumps who hide it better and have their establishment friends covering it up to keep the jig going. To hell with them all.

+1, the system is broken and can't be fixed. Let it burn.  Politics follows culture.  The government which exists is largely the government people want.  The problem is that too many people identify with the state.  The thing that pisses people off most about Trump is that they are embarrassed by him and can't be proud of him being president. "Other countries are laughing at us", etc.   That is good, you shouldn't identify with the state at all.  You shouldn't be proud of your president or think that the president has anything at all to do with you.   Anything that separates people from personally identifying with the government is good.  This is why I try never to use the terms "my", "our", or "we" when talking about the government or the military.  I have nothing to do with what the military is doing or the government is doing, nor do you.  It is "the" government, not "our" government.  When I started hearing the leftists say "not my president"  I couldn't have been happier.  Now that is a step in the right direction.  You can't change the government without first changing the culture.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."
-- H. L. Mencken

[wachtwoord]

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

He would? Isn't he the closest to Libertarian ideals of any mainstream candidate in decades? I would like to know you don't consider him a step in the right direction.

Because he would be able to do nothing as president.  He thinks of himself as a "mainstream" politician and wouldn't rock the boat.   He isn't his dad.  He wouldn't go in there day one and start trying to end the Fed, close all the overseas military bases, and bring all the troops home.   He'd do little of anything that would result in real change.  Ron Paul as president would be a positive, he'd be unstoppable until the military industrial complex simply assassinated him.  Rand Paul, not so much.

Ok so incompetance. Tbh I don't think it's even possible to achieve libertarianism through democracy. And I prefer Paul (either really) over all the other clowns running.

[michaelj]

For McAffee? Really? The guy's completely immoral and borderline insane.

And Trump, Hillary, and Bernie are .... ?

I didn't know you supported any of those?

Just support Rand Paul?

I don't support anyone.   But if someone must be president, I'd rather it be someone likely to destroy all respect for the office, (the only good thing about Trump) than a half-libertarian mainstream politician like Rand Paul.  Rand Paul wouldn't be able (or willing) to change anything, then everyone would say "See the libertarians had their chance and nothing changed".

A Rand Paul presidency would set the Liberty movement in America back generations.

Spot on. This is what is obvious but missed by most people. It's why its worth laughing(and easy to) at the "how could you vote for Trump" crowd. Or at the "I'm outraged by Trump" crowd. They're supporting people just as bad if not worse than Trump, they're just too stupid to see it. Trump(or in this case McAfee) is a blatant f you to the entire establishment. He's dirty, rough around the edges, and likely extremely corrupt. The "traditional candidates" and previous presidents, are just slimy, conniving, Trumps who hide it better and have their establishment friends covering it up to keep the jig going. To hell with them all.

+1, the system is broken and can't be fixed. Let it burn.  Politics follows culture.  The government which exists is largely the government people want.  The problem is that too many people identify with the state.  The thing that pisses people off most about Trump is that they are embarrassed by him and can't be proud of him being president. "Other countries are laughing at us", etc.   That is good, you shouldn't identify with the state at all.  You shouldn't be proud of your president or think that the president has anything at all to do with you.   Anything that separates people from personally identifying with the government is good.  This is why I try never to use the terms "my", "our", or "we" when talking about the government or the military.  I have nothing to do with what the military is doing or the government is doing, nor do you.  It is "the" government, not "our" government.  When I started hearing the leftists say "not my president"  I couldn't have been happier.  Now that is a step in the right direction.  You can't change the government without first changing the culture.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."
-- H. L. Mencken

I appreciate your views because they are eons away from mine, and I'm trying to understand your perspective. If step 1 is blow everything up to smithereens (i.e. the Bannon model), what does that look like practically in terms of foreign policy, domestic policy, institutions, government services? If it's more a matter of changing the culture, I think it's clear Trump has thrown a grenade on process and norms, but I'm hard pressed to see how him installing former lobbyists, industry folks, etc. in leadership positions is changing the underlying D.C. culture. In any event, what's step 2? What's the end game here?

[rkbabang]

I appreciate your views because they are eons away from mine, and I'm trying to understand your perspective. If step 1 is blow everything up to smithereens (i.e. the Bannon model), what does that look like practically in terms of foreign policy, domestic policy, institutions, government services? If it's more a matter of changing the culture, I think it's clear Trump has thrown a grenade on process and norms, but I'm hard pressed to see how him installing former lobbyists, industry folks, etc. in leadership positions is changing the underlying D.C. culture. In any event, what's step 2? What's the end game here?

One minor point, is you mention "Washington culture", that isn't the culture I'm talking about.  Washington Culture will always be about big government getting bigger.  I'm talking about American culture.  Step 1 is getting people to not respect government, to not identify with government, and to not look to government to solve problems.  Step 2?   I don't know.  Has any government/empire in recorded history gotten significantly smaller and less powerful without either being violently overthrown (from the outside or in) or going through a massive financial collapse?  Theoretically it is possible in a Western Democracy/Republic, but in practice it has never happened.  I don't know what step 2 is?  Maybe halting the empire's further growth is the best we can hope for, because I don't think the powerful people in the deep-state/military industrial complex are going to give up power easily.  But halting the growth of leviathan would be an improvement to the status quo.  Would 330M Americans with almost 400M guns be willing to take it a step further?  I don't know.

[LC]

I’m curious how the anarchists here balance the good with the bad. Is a federal govt all bad? Where is the line? For example, what would have happened during WW2 had the USA lived in some anarchist/libertarian state?