Comment by Tyger

Entered on: 4/24/2009 10:42:59 PM

If Mr. Wooldridge yelled at me, "There's a train coming! We need to get off the tracks!", I sure wouldn't argue with him about whether he had the right to tell me what to do or not, or accuse him of hating people who jump fences to walk down the railroad tracks. I think I would listen to what he said, realize that it was an urgent warning, and quickly do whatever I could to get out of the way, especially if I heard a diesel horn and saw the headlight of an engine coming at me.

There is plenty of scientific evidence and logic from credible sources available to confirm what he says is factual whenever anyone wishes to read and listen to it. Then again, I have been amazed for the last forty years or so at how many people choose to ignore the warnings and keep on walking down the tracks. Apparently, they figure being hit by the train of overpopulation won't hurt very much, or they think it's a slow-moving freight that they can avoid by jumping out of the way at the last second. Unfortunately, this train is gaining speed exponentially, and because it's tracks are world-wide, there will be no place to run to escape from it.

Comment by Ernest Hancock

Entered on: 4/25/2009 6:11:09 AM

Freedom's the Answer,... What was the Question again?

Without individual self determination and the respect of individual rights _any_ 'solution' will accompany oppression, tyranny and death on a massive scale (and solve that pesky population thing in the process).

A culture built around the protection of individual rights will produce solutions as well. 'Solutionsssss' (plural). Death and procreation limits (for _them_ of course) isn't a 'solution' I consider healthy to contemplate for humanity.

Freedom is always a solution, it allows for the most creative and often subtle methods of achieving a desired result. But I know the likely response to such thoughts, "Wake Up",... well my friend L. Neil Smith said it best...

“Wake up America ,” you demand? America doesn’t need to “wake up” – by which of course, you mean pay attention to whatever you think is important. If America weren’t already awake, paying attention to what each individual thinks is important, your milk wouldn’t have gotten delivered this morning, and you wouldn’t have any electricity this afternoon. - L. Neil Smith

We take so much for granted that we don't understand the true power of freedom.

No Fear,
Ernest Hancock

Comment by Biker-Chick

Entered on: 4/25/2009 9:02:38 AM

..
Is this a gringo impasse ? (please forgive this small attempt at humor)

It is clear that Lorber and Wooldridge love their country.

No point in throwing rocks at one-another.

We-the-People who are legitimate residents of the USA can understand why our neighbors to the south have such rigid immigration enforcement - TO PROTECT JOBS.

So simple. Mexico is unable to host and provide services to folks who are unlawfully present. The USA has the same problem. Both nations cannot be a dumping ground for indigent folks from third-world nations.

Why ? Because there are more than 1,300,000,000 in line to relocate.

Perhaps you two can find common ground ? Please.
..

Comment by Brock

Entered on: 4/25/2009 10:31:01 AM

Biker-Chick, I don't think anyone is throwing rocks. An impassioned philosophical debate is a good thing. So is identifying the logical potholes in anyone's argument - where potholes exist, an examination by reducing the argument to the absurd is appropriate.

Some people eschew labels because they too easily become ad hominem attacks. However, I look at it from a programmer's standpoint; if one can set up the case to use a label appropriately, then the label can take the place of a long reductio ad absurdum like a code block in a computer program.

For example, Woolridge took exception to my use of sociopathic. However, his list of problems were almost all individual economic problems. By seeking to collectivize ownership of economic problems, he feels he has a case for uneconomic solutions.

The only way to impose uneconomic solutions on economic problems is by force. He needs the problems to be collectively owned to provide some sort of moral legitimacy to a program of depriving humans of life, liberty, and property. Such a program fits the textbook definition of antisocial and, therefore, anyone practicing or advocating such a program is sociopathic.

You posited that I love my country. Maybe, but probably not in the fashion you intended. I love the entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity of individuals; while it is true that there is an impressive concentration of those traits in North Americans, it is by no means limited to that geographical region. Life will flourish and overcome any of the economic problems Woolridge sees where ever it is allowed.

You see a problem of 1.3 billion wanting to enter an area flush with ingenuity and entrepreneurs. I see a problem of some untold number of ingenious entrepreneurs who cannot take their skills in solving economic problems to areas which desperately need them (where ever your 1.3 billion come from) because of a prevalent authoritarian sociopathic notion of imaginary boundaries for imaginary nations.

Comment by Christine

Entered on: 4/27/2009 12:26:31 PM

Excellent post, Brock Lorber! And while I'm at it, I liked Mike Renzulli's April 21st letter.

Comment by Brock

Entered on: 4/28/2009 10:33:29 AM

I apologize to Mr. Wooldridge for repeated misspellings of his name.