I'll be the first to admit that I didn't follow all of the links that Wooldridge provided today. I've followed them in the past and they lead straight to anti-logic. Frosty Wooldridge is the undisputed king of providing links to graphs comparing the length of aardvark noses to immigration. When you jump the shark in the assumptions, the conclusions are not above suspicion.
But, concede it all. Stipulate that every one of the numbers match the rhetoric. And then, sweep it all aside with four little words.
You don't own me.
You don't own my body. You don't own my mind. You don't own my past and, therefore, you don't own my property. Lastly, insofar as my future shall be consumed with defending my body and my property from the likes of Frosty Wooldridge, you don't own it, either.
That is exactly where every immigration zealot loses the narrative: a complete disregard for property.
In Wooldridge's own words (emphasis mine):
We face accelerating water shortages, climate change and energy crises! We face horrific animal and plant extinctions at over 100 per day worldwide. In the USA, we face losing 2,500 species every decade. We’ve got gridlock, crowding and air pollution and higher living prices. We’ve got 32.2 million American living on food stamps. We’ve got 1.5 million homeless Americans. We’ve got 16 million unemployed. We face infrastructure, language, educational and medical consequences GROWING because of both legal and illegal immigration.Anthropomorphizing the collective is where social science turns to sociopathy.
Collectors of food stamps don't own themselves, Wooldridge & Co. does. The unemployed belong to We, Inc. Our homeless should be righteously pissed at Us, LTD.
But, look what we don't own. We don't own any solutions, we own only problems. The solutions belong only to Wooldridge and his favorite sociopathic scientists.
Perhaps, though, there is a problem in the logic. Maybe, in the absence of a defined contractual relationship, collectives don't - indeed can't - own a damn thing.
As you and I cannot both stand in the same spot, neither can we both consume the same resources. You cannot digest the same bite of apple I digest. I cannot respirate oxygen your alveoli trap. Conservation of energy demands that, although we may stand side-by-side in front of a juke box, we cannot even collectively appreciate the sound wave that vibrates our tympanic membranes.
But, what is ownership, other than the ability to consume or dispose of a resource as we see fit?
Suppose a collective claimed ownership of a resource; if even one member of the collective was able to withhold his or her consent to consumption or disposal of the resource, the resource ceases to become collectively owned. By whatever means devised of determining consent, either the resource belongs to the individual(s) proposing consumption/disposal or it belongs to the individual(s) opposing consumption/disposal. This paring of ownership continues to the point where the resource is either owned by an individual, or is recognized as unowned.
If I invited Mr. A to my property, and Wooldridge does not approve of Mr. A due to skin color, language, culture, hatred of humans other than himself, or any other reason, and Wooldridge blockades or ejects A from my property, then clearly my "property" is not my property – it belongs to Wooldridge. Because, only Wooldridge et al have the wisdom, I should accept his determination.
However, I suspect Mr. Wooldridge would not accept the determination of my collective, or me, that Mr. A should visit his property. In the Wooldridge-sphere, only he may control property. How can one allow control of property to, "America's mass stupidity especially all the individual stupidities that make up the whole like Renzulli"?
You may have noticed that I provided a caveat above, that is, a defined contractual agreement. Of course you and I may agree to share a vehicle, with you in the driver's seat on odd days and me on even. We may subcontract, amend the contract, or even dissolve the contract. However, at no time is the property in flux; we may disagree as to ownership and seek redress, but there is a judicable solution.
Both Renzulli and Wooldridge appeal to non-contracts. At least, though, Renzulli's is written and generally considered valid. Wooldridge concocts a "social contract" out of thin air. Both, of course, are unilaterally sociopathic.
Renzulli's contract seems to impose some boundaries on what others may do with my property, while Wooldridge's seeks to make those boundaries geographical. Neither require a meeting of the minds, remuneration, or my assent.
In other words, the "social contract" is an attempt to legitimize the use of violence to achieve desired ends. Not your desired ends, but the ones that Wooldridge and his assembled technocrats desire for you and your property.
* Latin is a foreign language to me, so I apologize if "personal attack to the absurdth degree" isn't expressed in that manner.