A recent episode of the TV show "Sons of Anarchy" got me thinking about why I will not be voting for either of the front running presidential candidates in the upcoming election. "Sons of Anarchy", on the FX channel, is about a fictional motorcycle gang based in Northern California. An episode which aired several weeks ago revolved around a guy who was kicked out of the gang for turning his back on another gang member during a robbery. I can’t remember the disgraced gang member’s name, so we’ll call him Dude. Dude was kicked out of the gang and, to add to his punishment, was told to black-out the Sons of Anarchy tattoo that he had on his back. Sometime later, perhaps several years, the Sons of Anarchy gang discovered that Dude still had his SoA tattoo.
Dude came crawling back to the gang, pleading to let him back into the gang because, as he claimed, it was all he had in life. The gang survives through theft and murder of innocent people, and Dude believed that this was his only means of survival. Dude made a peace offering to the Sons of Anarchy, telling them that he had a scheme that would bring in a lot of cash and he wanted to include the Sons in on it. The Sons brought Dude to their hide-out to let him plead his case. Talking over a few drinks, the Sons acted forgiving, and made Dude feel comfortable so that he would freely give them the information he had. He proceeded to do so.
After disclosing the details about the scheme he had to bring in money, the Sons tricked Dude to follow them into the garage to look at a sexy chopper that he would surely appreciate. Once in the garage, the Sons surrounded Dude, and forced him to take off his shirt, revealing the Sons of Anarchy tattoo which he was supposed to have blackened out. Dude begged and pleaded to the gang, sobbing "Please, this is all I have. I couldn't get rid of it." In a matter of fact grumble, the leader of the Sons asked, "Fire or knife?" This meant that Dude had a choice; he could either have his tattoo cut off or burned off by the other gang members. What a just and democratic gang members these be! The disgraced Dude chose "fire", and the gang members strapped him up and used a blowtorch to burn his entire back. In spite of the awful choices presented to him, you might say that the gang member chose what he considered to be the lesser of two evils presented to him.
You might argue that Dude reaped what he sowed, by choosing a life of crime and murder. It was that choice that inevitably led him to the choice of "Fire or knife". Of course, Dude could have chosen not to join a gang in the first place, and to live an honest and productive life to the best of his ability. Then someone may argue, "But, what if he didn't have any choice but to join a gang?" "Perhaps he lived in an area where the gangs were the most powerful force around? Or, perhaps he was poor and they offered to take care of him." Perhaps. But he still had a choice. Dude could have chosen to stand up and say, "This is wrong. This is not how we human beings should cooperate with each other, by ganging up to loot from others. Not one of us can truly survive in the long run in a gang." Dude’s choice to join the gang eventually led to the choice of "Fire or knife."
Wouldn't Dude possibly be risking his life by refusing to join a gang and speaking out against them? Not necessarily, but joining the gang will DEFINTELY lead to his destruction. By standing up and voting against joining a gang, perhaps others would too. Perhaps the balance of power would shift from gangs who believed that survival comes from looting and murder, to a coalition that believed that physical force should be outlawed and that voluntary cooperation and trade to mutual advantage is better for every individual.
I am sorry that this is a bit allegorical, but that is the choice that I am making by not voting for either of the front running candidates this election day. Both candidates represent the idea that gang life is the way of life, except they feel a sense of grandeur about it because their brand of looting and destruction is labeled “legal.” Take John McCain for example, the Presidential candidate for the Republican party. Republicans stand for free markets, right? On John McCain's Website, it says McCain "will create millions of good American jobs, ensure our nation's energy security, get the government's budget and spending practices in order, and bring relief to American consumers." How does a government create jobs? Governments, by their very nature, do not create anything. Governments can only spend money, which they have taken either by the threat of physical seizure of property or putting you in jail, or governments print money, which lowers your real income and wealth. Sure, new jobs would be created in whatever the government spends money on, but it comes at the expense of jobs that already existed somewhere else in the economy. The government will decide how it spends the fruits of your labor, even influence what you will do for a living and what you won't do for a living. It comes down to the government spending your labor and money on things that you do not want because they come at the expense of the things that YOU would have chosen to spend them on. Fire or knife?
In regards to healthcare, John McCain's website says, "John McCain believes that we can achieve savings in Medicare without reducing benefits or eligibility. He has proposed common-sense reforms that will not only put Medicare on a path of financial stability but ensure access to quality care for millions of Americans." How does the government ensure access to quality healthcare for millions of Americans? There are some people that do not believe that they are responsible for providing for their own well being, especially when it comes to health care. These people do not believe that they should have to work hard, save money, and ration their earnings to account for health emergenies (or even non-emergencies). These people believe that they are owed healthcare, to any extent, in exchange for having simply been born. This means that some people have the right to healthcare, while other people have the obligation to provide it. What this inevitably leads to is even less healthcare at even less quality. For an explanation of this, see here. Sooner or later, the proponents of socialized or subsidized healthcare will be offered two options when they need a kidney transplant: wait in line for a kidney for 12 months, suffering and assuredly not surviving that long, or euthenasia to end the suffering now. Fire or knife?
I am picking on John McCain because to most people it is obvious that Barack Obama stands for taking from some people to give to others. Some people believe that John McCain stands for capitalism, i.e. freedom and individual rights. It is not true. John McCain voted for the egregious financial bailout plan which puts money in the pockets of failed crony "capitalists" and aims to prevent some people from losing their homes (i.e., preventing them from having to cut back on their expenses on I-phones, big screen TV's, SUV's, or, gasp, moving into an apartment where sons Tommy and Joey may have to share a room. Oh the humanity!). Meanwhile, the end result of such a bailout, and the continued monetary inflation perpetrated by the Federal Reserve, will lead to an even larger bubble in a few years and to massive inflation on those consumer's goods that people really need, like food. Fire or knife?
Choosing either gang, represented by John McCain or Barack Obama, will eventually lead to being asked the question, "Fire or knife?" I abstain from voting for that, but I do so vocally, outside of the gangs’ corrupted voting mechanism. I vote for freedom and individual rights, which isn't even allowed as a write-in on those gang ballots. My ballot is the ear of anyone who will listen.
P.S. George Carlin has a great bit on voting here. If you are offended by vulgar language, don't watch this.
