Brock Lorber

More About: Immigration

Wooldridge -- Blind Hatred is an Emotion, Too

Author's Note: This article has been changed to correctly spell Mr. Wooldridge's name.  I apologize to Mr. Wooldridge for the repeated errors and thank Mr. Thomas Knapp of Rational Review for pointing them out.
I can imagine the red haze over Frosty Wooldridge's eyes, spittle foaming at the corners of his mouth as he bangs the keyboard in frenzied haste to create a suitable ad hominem ad absurdiem* to properly chastise Mike Renzulli

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.

6 Comments in Response to

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:

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

Comment by Christine Smith
Entered on:

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

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:
Biker-Chick, I don**Q**t think anyone is throwing rocks. An impassioned philosophical debate is a good thing. So is identifying the logical potholes in anyone**Q**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**Q**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 Don Mckee
Entered on:
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 Ernest Hancock
Entered on:
Freedom**Q**s the Answer,... What was the Question again?

Without individual self determination and the respect of individual rights _any_ **Q**solution**Q** 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. **Q**Solutionsssss**Q** (plural). Death and procreation limits (for _them_ of course) isn**Q**t a **Q**solution**Q** 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, **QQ**Wake Up**QQ**,... 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**Q**t understand the true power of freedom.

No Fear,
Ernest Hancock

Comment by Tyger Gilbert
Entered on:
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.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: