One of the final entries I will be making in the series of candidate analysis for those running for the nomination for President within the Libertarian Party will be John McAfee.

Mr. McAfee is probably the most widely known of those who stepped up to run in 2016 within the Libertarian Party. A household name for anyone who ever bought anti-virus software, this alone gives him an advantage among the general electorate. Name recognition is a huge thing, especially when you are a third party with hurdles in getting media attention.

John is also very well articulated on libertarian philosophy. He doesn’t seem to have to think before giving a response to a question, and he’s able to communicate in terms palatable to most people. His speaking ability also sounds genuine, and when he delivers, even if previously rehearsed, sounds like it came off the cuff.

Out of the candidates who have garnered somewhat more considerable media attention, he has also remained the most consistently libertarian in his answers. This is important because as libertarians, we want the message to stay on course and not watered down.

Mr. McAfee is also no stranger to leading, as his reported net worth before Intel bought his company, was around $100 million. This shows direction to the future, the ability to have others willingly follow, and demonstrates outstanding organizational structure.

He also has a better command of possible cyber threats that are a very real chance in today’s technology driven world. He is far and above the best candidate having knowledge in this regard, and something that needs to be considered.

In spite of these strengths, there are a few things I have observed that do need to be addressed about John McAfee.

The first one that is the most obvious is there have been suspicions present he is only using our party for ballot access. Before he declared as a Libertarian candidate, he was a Presidential candidate for the Cyber Party. While this alone is certainly not a disqualifier, as many of us came from elsewhere before going libertarian, it does tie in with two other concerns I have.


The fist tied in concern is that he has publicly stated if Gary Johnson were to be nominated, he would cease supporting the party. What he fails to realize in this is that delegates are human and measure their own criteria in selecting candidates. We don’t always get things right (Root & Barr spring immediately to mind). We survived them, and we’ll survive again so long as we continue to hold onto principle. And by abandoning altogether, he also removes support from candidates in other races who are beyond libertarian in application.

You don’t have to support a candidate you don’t believe in, but I would still continue to fight for other candidates at all levels of office.

The second tie in to my concerns are the massive public works programs he advocated for while in the Cyber Party. I personally believe he has realized that we wouldn’t support such programs as libertarians. He denies knowledge of these program suggestions, but they were on his website for a couple months before he made the switch to the Libertarian Party.

The final concerns I have about Mr. McAfee is his time in Belize. He has denied allegations, but the media will have a hay day with his past if he gains any decent rise in polling to be considered a threat to the duopoly. Even if the allegations are false, and even though we as libertarians don’t care if a person chooses to consume illicit substances or have multiple companions, the general electorate may not be so accepting or tolerant as Bill O’Reilly or George Stephanopoulos rip him apart at the behest of their party leaders.

So, my two cents on McAfee are simply to tread carefully. It might go really well or might tear us apart. You are the judge with your vote.

To learn more go to


2 thoughts on “Candidate Analysis – John McAfee

  1. The article makes a big deal of two stupid points. One, John did nothing wrong in Belize and the author still acts like abc and talks about it as if he’s not innocent. FACT, he’s innocent and should be portrayed this way. The author apparently thinks if someone is innocent they shouldn’t run because they will get torn up by Stephonopolous. That is lame. John was a HERO in Belize so get the story straight. Gary Johnson flipped to the Libertarian party right in the middle of a POTUS race so Gary is the loser in that dept. John is a hero and the article makes two stupid points that are so minor it’s a joke. Gary Johnson left people, innocent people, non violent drug offenders in PRISON to ROT when he could have pardoned them out (FACT), that’s a deal breaker. Gary’s playing thre TED CRUZ delegate game to which is a dirty way of disenfranchising voters. I think Gary is scum and wouldn’t vote for him either except he’s an L so I will vote for whoever the nominee is. If more comes out I Gary, maybe I won’t. gary is a bad man and voting for the lesser of 3 evils may not make sense to John, SO WHAT, maybe GARY is THAT BAD!!!

    1. My two cents on your comment:

      First, I said it’s fine to not support Jonson. However, if McAfee stops supporting altogether, he leaves other great candidates in other races behind.

      Thr other point is that I said allegations in Belize. I do not assume guilt. Nor do I imply he’s guilty. I simply stated that the mrdia will make a big deal out of it. You know the media in the mainstream is controlled by the two parties.

      This is not a hit piece against John, as I clearly state he is a fairly solid candidate. In each article written I write about the candidate strength and possible concerns. I’m not showing favor to any of them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s