The Possibility of a Ron Paul 3rd Party Run

by
Scott
Lazarowitz

Recently
by Scott Lazarowitz: The
Bureaucratic Berlin Wall in Amerika



We are certainly
at a crossroads in America, with Election 2012. The political ruling
class has usurped many of our rights away, and stolen much of the
private wealth and capital that had provided jobs and opportunities
and had raised the standard of living more than in any other society.

But the farce
that these elections continue to be merely reinforces my point that
such elections are mere rearranging
of deck chairs.

The Ron Paul
people have been following the rules at the state conventions and
winning delegates to go to the national convention, while, apparently,
the Romney people have been allegedly engaging in cheating
and dirty
tricks, the latest of which has been in my dreaded state, the
People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

But why Ron
Paul is trying to get the nomination of a party that has been a
socialist-neocon-central planning party for 150 years, I’ll never
know.

The convention
will be a Romney-coronation police
state nightmare, especially for those who are there on behalf
of Paul.

As Lew Rockwell
advised,
it may even be a good idea that the Ron Paul delegates not even
attend the convention, for their own safety.

My prediction
is that Ron Paul’s delegates will not be treated well there, and
there will most certainly be agents provocateurs trying to
provoke some kind of disruption that would then be blamed on Ron
Paul.

And if the
nominating process actually does go to a second ballot in which
Ron Paul delegates then give Romney a real challenge, the Ron
Paul people will be accused of cheating, as though they didn’t
legitimately win their delegate status.

But is all
this worth it, especially given how within the national Republican
Party many people are still hostile to Ron Paul’s message of freedom,
personal responsibility, and peace?

That is why
I still believe that Ron Paul should run as a third party candidate.

Unfortunately,
those delusional anti-Obama conservatives – the ones who keep saying
how important it is that we oust Obama, and that we all must get
behind Romney – do not understand that they want to get behind a
socialist, mealy-mouthed politician who is really no different from
Obama, except for the rhetoric, which means nothing in the real
world.

And then there
are those people who think that a Ron Paul third-party run would
harm Rand Paul’s chances in 2016, if he were to run for President
at that time. “Yech,” is what I have to say to that. And
the reason for that is that electing any one of the current statists
who support the status quo now will just be a further kicking
the can down the road which will definitely lead to the economic
collapse, civil unrest, martial law and chaos that trend forecasters
such as Gerald
Celente have been predicting for a while.

What really
got me was this
interview that was going viral, in which Rand Paul defended
Romney’s record at Bain Capital, but was erroneously being labeled
as an “endorsement” of Romney. Most of the comments on
that post show that many people in the liberty movement are still
supportive of Ron Paul, would never vote for Willard Romney under
any circumstances, and believe that a Rand Paul endorsement of Willard
(or worse, a Rand Paul VP nomination with Willard) would
be a total sell-out.

The truth is,
the real Romney is not a “capitalist.” He is a
socialist. And it is that Romney-Obama socialism and central planning
that have been destroying America for a century.

But in their
irrational cognitive dissonance and fear and panic of an Obama reelection,
the “conservatives”
say we must in solidarity all get behind the socialist Romney in
November. But who is it exactly that the hysterical ones are supporting?

Delusional
Republicans and conservatives nationwide who are all getting behind
Romney in November means this: They would be getting behind

Now, is Rand
Paul really sure that he wants to get behind that kind of
candidate in the 2012 presidential election?

Ron Paul is
none of those things.

But, most of
all – and this is where Rand Paul is wrong in that aforementioned
interview – Willard Romney is no “capitalist.” No real
capitalist would impose insurance mandates on people by the force
of law.

No real
capitalist would implement a health insurance bureaucracy called
the “Commonwealth
Health Insurance Connector Authority.” Or even consider
“carbon taxes,” and so on and so on.

Dr. Paul is
the true capitalist in his support of truly free markets, private
property, and the sanctity of voluntary contracts under the rule
of law.

Remember now,
the zombie Republican Convention Romney fanatics – part of the real
“Tinfoil Hat” crowd – the ones who will be attempting
to shut out the Ron Paul delegates, will be supporting one of the
most socialist Republican candidates in a long time.

One big difference
between Obama-Romney and Ron Paul: When the economy does collapse
and there is civil unrest, both Obama and Romney will impose a treasonous,
civil liberties-crushing, due process-free federal martial
law, but Ron Paul will not do that.

Instead of
the Obama-Romney unconstitutional, un-American martial law, Ron
Paul would (at least I think he would) restore to the people
their God-given right to protect themselves form aggressors, from
burglars, looters, rioters, muggers, thieves, rapists and other
violent criminals.

Imposing martial
law against the American people would pose even more of a threat
against our security than rioters and thieves themselves, by unleashing
an already out-of-control government-security complex and
military onto innocent civilians.

The military
has long been the Presidents’
personal army, just as the American Founders feared.

In a society
of true common sense and the preservation of freedom, the civilians
would be armed, and the employees of government would not. Threats
from foreigners would be met with immediate resistance from an armed,
vigilant public.

Statist Presidents
such as the two Bushes, Clinton and Obama and their minions have
been making that go the other way to the point of the current tyranny
we have today, with their disarming of the American people, and
their starting of wars of aggression and provoking of foreigners
to make us less safe, their spreading the military across the globe
and weakening our actual security.

Romney would
continue
that path toward greater weakness by way of the neocons’
delusional hegemonic fantasies.

Now, if Ron
Paul does not get the Republican nomination for President at the
convention, then, as Justin Raimondo has suggested,
Paul really ought to run as a third party candidate, either as an
Independent, or perhaps Gary
Johnson could step aside and let Dr. Paul run as the Libertarian
Party candidate.

However, as
prominent voluntaryist Carl Watner has stated,
attempting to restore freedom via the political electoral process
is futile, as the use of the State’s own apparatus of institutionalized
aggression ends up serving the State’s own ends. You cannot force
people to be free.

Which is not
to say that we can’t elect Ron Paul who would at least dismantle
immediately some of the federal government’s most egregious
grasps on our persons and property.

You see, unlike
the current and past socialists and statists who have ruined America,
and who promise further ruination, Ron Paul doesn’t want
to use the political system to implement some political agenda or
program. Unlike those other politicians who want these political
offices because they crave power and control over others, Ron
Paul just wants us to have our freedom.

No, Dr. Paul
wants to be elected to the presidency to dismantle the unconstitutional
extensions of the President’s executive power that Obama and previous
Presidents have given themselves without the approval of the people’s
representatives in Congress, Paul would fire all the czars, and
repeal many of the federal government’s intrusions and encroachments
into our lives and liberty.

Now,
some people are worried that a Ron Paul third-party run would harm
Rand Paul’s political future, Rand’s potential for a 2016
presidential run. First, America can’t wait that long for a restoration
of our freedom. And also, honest people ought not be concerned with
political career-planning.

Ultimately,
what Americans need to do is engage in mass non-violent resistance.
They need to withdraw their consent of all the economy-destroying,
liberty-crushing socialist policies that these bureaucrat imbeciles
have imposed on us.

As Carl Watner
pointed
out,

The goal
of voluntaryist resistance is to abolish the political power structure
and its success or failure in obtaining that objective rests squarely
on the degree to which its strategy succeeds in delegitimizing
the State and in inducing people to withdraw their support from
the government. Its major strategies rest on education (which
heightens public awareness of the evils of the State) and in persuading
large numbers of persons to refuse to cooperate with the government
… Voluntaryists must structure the conflict situation with the
government in such a manner that the government becomes responsible
for the resulting actions. Mass non-cooperation and widespread
civil disobedience present a “resist or abdicate” dilemma to the
government. In resisting voluntaryist demands, the government
becomes responsible for its own repressive acts. In abdicating,
the government not only loses face but political power.

May
31, 2012

Scott
Lazarowitz [send him
mail] is a commentator and cartoonist, visit his
blog.

Copyright
© 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The
Best of Scott Lazarowitz