Boortz: save the rich people first

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

You're poor Joe? How terrible. It would explain some of your politics though.

I wouldn't consider myself poor, but I certainly wouldn't consider myself rich. As for my politics, I'll let others figure out how they can be explained.

I regret that I come back to these threads after such long delays. I'm afraid I just don't have the time to stay on top of all of them.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the income range of the rich to be? And of the poor?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Are you really trying to press this as an advantage to your argument? Rich or poor, one would expect and hope that the first people someone in the know thinks about is his or her family...then the Rich.

Boortz established a rationale for saving people in a crisis: the rich go first because they're better. Then he said that he would save his family and loved ones first. Now either his family and loved ones are all rich, or else he's setting up an exception to his rule. But his rule was premised on the claim that the rich are just worth more than the common rabble, and so deserve the spots in the lifeboat that are reserved for them.

Or else he had a problem with sequence, or you've misinterpreted what he wrote. It seems pretty clear to me that he has expressed that before the rich, he would save his family and loved ones. Chances are that most of his family and loved ones are rich, but I suspect he would reach out and rescue those that are poor as well.

Boortz doesn't explain why his family and loved ones also deserve to get a few of those spots. One might presume that he has some kind of inexplicable emotional attachment to his family and loved ones. He shouldn't, of course, because Boortz suggests that these kinds of decisions should be made on the basis of societal good rather than on any sort of personal, non-rational basis. After all, if we let "emotion" cloud our judgment, we might make a mistake and let some sympathetic-but-non-deserving poor person jump to the head of the line.

Fair point.

I don't think his attachment to his family and loved ones is inexplicable (and nor do I think it is unfathomable to you), but unless all of his family and loved ones are rich, his impulse to save them is inconsistent with his argument.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

]Choosing the rich will, admittedly, allow parasites like Paris Hilton to slip in, and excluding the poor will, admittedly, miss any number of future tycoons in their formative years, but, overall, which class of people better represents achievers?

I have no idea. Being rich, I'm sure, has a high correlation with achieving wealth: I doubt it has a significant correlation with "achievement" measured in non-monetary terms.

It is certainly the case that not all achievers are rich. Achievements in any number of important fields of human endeavors do not, necessarily, result in wealth. However, there are a fair number of practitioners within these fields who have been able to amass wealth as well as accolades.

Presumably you are not arguing that the poor be saved in advance of the rich. If this is the case then it would seem that there are but two alternatives to the Boortz premise. One would be some process which weighs all sorts of relative factors, of which only one is wealth, and the second would be to rely upon the justice of random selection.

I, would argue that the second alternative, while meeting the criteria of being "fair," would not be very practical in terms of perpetuating civilization. I would also argue that by the time a profile, through the process of alternative #1, was able to determine who should be saved, it would be far more arbitrary and indefensible than relying upon who is rich.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

But Boortz doesn't, necessarily, have a problem with democracy. He isn't suggesting, as far as I can tell, that poor people be denied the right to vote. Our democracy means equality under the law.

Indeed it does, which is a problem for Boortz. Remember, he is talking about a government informing wealthy citizens of impending disaster before it gets around to telling the rest of us. Were this simply some hypothetical lifeboat scenario, where Boortz gets to save his family, his pals, and the wealthy, then that would be one thing. When it comes to the government picking and choosing, however, that brings up the notion of democracy. If Boortz wants a democratic government to make distinctions among citizens based on wealth, then he most definitely does have a problem with democracy.

I see your point, and agree. Of course in the midst of a crisis that calls into question the continuation of civilization, it may be prudent to forego democratic principles.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It's entirely possible that given enough time, a quite considered opinion might be rendered that it is in the best interest of civilization that a proportional share of the poor be save along with the rich. After all, it might, indeed, be difficult to find people to mow post-apocalyptic lawns if all the survivors were formerly millionaires. However Boortz seems to be suggesting that the poor are an inexhaustible resource. Earth Two may, by his approach, be populated by the rich, but in no time the poor will reveal themselves (Paris Hilton probably).

No, Boortz suggests no such thing. You are suggesting it, and I don't necessarily disagree (I too would like to see Paris Hilton mowing lawns for a living). But if Boortz is imagining evacuating the wealthy from New York in advance of a terrorist attack, then I'm sure there will be plenty of illegal immigrants in the Hamptons who will be left to do the post-apocalyptic yard work.

I can't speak definitively for Boortz and neither, I suspect, can you, and so I will not argue the point further. Suffice it to say that we (seemingly) agree that if only the rich are saved, in time, natural forces (unassisted by do-gooders) will reestablish a class structure that can be described as "rich" and "poor," and so our post-apocalyptic lawns will be mowed.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

And that is precisely why he created the hypothetical! How insightful of you to unearth the fact that Boortz is merely a cruel son-of-a bitch who would like to see poor black men die!

Thanks, I'm glad I was able to share my insights with you.

There is an undeniable prejudicial bias that suggests that Social Darwinism is bad for blacks.

I regret that I come back to these threads after such long delays. I'm afraid I just don't have the time to stay on top of all of them.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider the income range of the rich to be? And of the poor?

Or else he had a problem with sequence, or you've misinterpreted what he wrote. It seems pretty clear to me that he has expressed that before the rich, he would save his family and loved ones. Chances are that most of his family and loved ones are rich, but I suspect he would reach out and rescue those that are poor as well.

Fair point.

I don't think his attachment to his family and loved ones is inexplicable (and nor do I think it is unfathomable to you), but unless all of his family and loved ones are rich, his impulse to save them is inconsistent with his argument.

It is certainly the case that not all achievers are rich. Achievements in any number of important fields of human endeavors do not, necessarily, result in wealth. However, there are a fair number of practitioners within these fields who have been able to amass wealth as well as accolades.

Presumably you are not arguing that the poor be saved in advance of the rich. If this is the case then it would seem that there are but two alternatives to the Boortz premise. One would be some process which weighs all sorts of relative factors, of which only one is wealth, and the second would be to rely upon the justice of random selection.

I, would argue that the second alternative, while meeting the criteria of being "fair," would not be very practical in terms of perpetuating civilization. I would also argue that by the time a profile, through the process of alternative #1, was able to determine who should be saved, it would be far more arbitrary and indefensible than relying upon who is rich.

I see your point, and agree. Of course in the midst of a crisis that calls into question the continuation of civilization, it may be prudent to forego democratic principles.

I can't speak definitively for Boortz and neither, I suspect, can you, and so I will not argue the point further. Suffice it to say that we (seemingly) agree that if only the rich are saved, in time, natural forces (unassisted by do-gooders) will reestablish a class structure that can be described as "rich" and "poor," and so our post-apocalyptic lawns will be mowed.

There is an undeniable prejudicial bias that suggests that Social Darwinism is bad for blacks.