So should we get on everyone who owns a large house?

[donco6]

Wonder how big the Kennedy Compound is - if you include all the yachts, I mean.

Is it really necessary to indict all the wealthy when one decides to spend his money?

[Tommy_J]

1. Good point

This whole thing strikes me as total BS

[donco6]

2. Me too. eom

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. Why not? Plenty of DUers jump on those who drive SUVs. And are probably the same ones who are

defending Edwards future McMansion. Oh and btw, there have been threads about those disgusting McMansions on DU in the past also and they weren't positive threads either. :shrug: Can we get the rules on what level of materialism is acceptable and what isn't? Just too be clear, that is. For the record, I couldn't care less about the Edwards house. It doesn't register with me.

[Clark2008]

4. No - but can we please discuss everyone who supports

going to war in Iran!?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=49201&mesg_id=49201

[smoogatz]

8. Yes. Let's.

I couldn't give a flying fuck what kind of house Edwards lives in or how much money he has or where he chooses to spend it. None of my business, and I frankly could not care less. What IS important is that Edwards appears to be completely clueless, still, about the Middle East and weapons proliferation and defense policy. My brother lived in NC for twenty-five years, he's a devout progressive, and he told me in '04 that his take on Edwards was that he was pretty much a grinning fool. If Edwards' co-sponsorship of the IWR and now this apparent repetition of the same idiotic blunder are any indication, I'd say my brother was right.

[Clark2008]

18. My former brother-in-law who lives in North Carolina would completely

agree with your brother. And he's a progressive, too.

[smoogatz]

5. It's the classic rightwing smear of wealthy Democrats--

or "limousine liberals," as they're called on faux news. Liberals aren't supposed to care about making money, you see--they're supposed to sit around eating tofu and being concerned about other people all the time. If they make money, they're hypocrites. If they SPEND any of the money they've made instead of giving it all to worthy social causes, well, then they're objects of scorn and ridicule. It's always a shame when the left buys into rightwing propaganda; it just makes us look ridiculous, and damages our leadership and our agenda.

[Neshanic]

6. When a new one shows up like the Edwardses, then yes, but

the other candidates are not that stupid.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

47. bingo

nt

[Taoschick]

7. It depends

If you own multiple homes, multiple vehicles, travel thousands of miles by plane per year, don't lecture me on energy conservation.

Actually, I think it would be good if we started "getting on" some of our Congressmen and Senators. I don't want to hear a multimillionaire who inherited/married wealth to pretend to know what I need. the fact is, they don't. They're too busy writing tax laws to protect what they have.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. Hey, if Edwards will give his house to me, I will think about forgiving him

:D

Edited to add: :sarcasm:

Just cause some folks might think I'm serious

[Bonhomme Richard]

10. I could think of a lot of arguements against John Edwards but....

the size of his house is NOT one of them. Hell, if I could afford a house that size I might live in it too.

[leveymg]

11. Notice how this house meme popped up? Right after Edwards got flack for his Iran comments

This is just a distracting non-issue.

[philosophie_en_rose]

12. Yes. If a manger was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for you.

:sarcasm:

[donco6]

14. BWA ha!

Did you get that off of Free Republic? Actually, that's a little too funny for their tiny little minds to think up.

[rsmith6621]

13. The Sad Thing is......

.....why is it only millionaires are able to run for the white house....when was the last time someone whos w-2 said less than $200K ran.......maybe 1952...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

23. The prerequisites for running for the presidency should be that you are in the

same boat as the majority of the people you profess to represent, lead, serve.

[donco6]

25. From what perspective?

Income? Race? Educational background? What kind of car you drive?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

28. A 1996 honda..... and what I mean is he should be a commoner, a middle

of the roader, not some shmuck born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

[donco6]

29. One man's silver spoon is another man's trencher.

How do you divide it?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

34. In a nation that exists only because it stole a country from another race, it

would be very hard to divide anything appropriately. The lie of more provides its own rewards.... many times in ways we just never saw coming. I've never used a trencher btw, I've always relied on a pick axe, no kidding.

[Auntie Bush]

15. I don't complain about the size of their home or their many "goodies".

I just think these super rich politicians/congress persons should make more charitable donations for all to see. Like buying modest small homes for poor people or sending some disadvantaged children to college.
How about setting up a Democratic Trust Fund that Democrats can donate funds to be used to help the poor or homeless. That's what Democrats stand for... so should put their money where their mouth is. The lists of donations should be made public so the donors receive credit where credit is due. This could make the Democratic Party much more desirable than the selfish Republican party.

Another way is for Democrats to promise a small percentage of their campaign donations to be used to help Katrina victims etc.

[donco6]

17. How much did Edwards give away last year?

I don't have any idea - do you? And what if he gave to - Children International instead of Katrina - would that be bad or good?

My point is, we're judging a man's heart here, and that's just not fair.

[hashibabba]

19. Seriously, do we know how much Edwards gives to the poor?

A lot of people think its gauche to discuss how much they've given to charity. Is a presidential candidate obligated to report how much he gives to his favorite charities? :shrug: I don't know. I'm just asking.

[Auntie Bush]

26. No, we don't know...but someone just posted how much he gave and.

it was a lot!

But I do think we should know. I think it would encourage them to donate more if they knew others would know what they did and appreciate their generosity and see how generous Democrats are. One would be trying to out due the other. I think it would be a great campaign tactic...and no offense to Edwards. He unfortunately inspired the whole idea. Edwards is a very generous man and I'm really impressed.

[TahitiNut]

16. It's our 'right' to rape the planet ... or however much we can afford to.

It's every American's 'right' to consume twenty times more than other huamn beings on the planet. If God didn't intend for us to do that, She wouldn't put Her name on our money.

After all, the more we consume the better we are. Just ask George.

:crazy:

[donco6]

20. Personally, I think the word "rape" is devalued by overuse.

But that's just me.

[TahitiNut]

21. Tell that to the people downstream from the strip mining.

Visit West Virgina. Look at the deforestation of the Pacific Northwest. When we regard the species extinction, destruction of barrier reefs, global warming, and wholesale destruction of lives in a mad rush for OIL, I'm at a loss to call it anything else.

Would you prefer 'vandalize' or 'pillage'? OK. Use that.


rape noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.

1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object)
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
–verb (used without object)
9. to commit rape.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape

[donco6]

24. I thought we were talking about a house? n/t

[TahitiNut]

30. "We"?? I'm talking about Kant's Categorical Imperative.

I'm talking about doing "we" would have everyone do - acting as though "we" were ALL acting according to the same sense of 'right' and 'wrong'... and considering the consequences.

A house contains copper wiring, which comes from mines. A house contains lumber, which comes from forests. The resources required to build a house come from somewhere on the planet. How much energy to extract, fabricate, and transport those materials? How much energy to maintain such a house?

How many hundreds of people in Darfur combined consume less in a year? In ten years?

How many people, working at minimum wage for a year, would it take to just pay for the floor coverings in such a place? the window coverings?

Just because it's "normal" and "accepted" and "banal" and "legal" doesn't mean it's 'right'.

:shrug:

[donco6]

31. So people shouldn't build houses.

Or eat food, or breathe, or . . . live?

The only logical conclusion to Kant's Categorical Imperative.

[TahitiNut]

32. Oh, bullshit! Such an uncivil, imbecilic straw man deserves nothing but disgust.

:puke:

[donco6]

33. Sorta like your strip mines and rape, I guess.

:puke:

[TahitiNut]

36. Congratulations! Did you graduate from the class on "Argue Like A FReeper" with honors?

A apologize for not recognizing a complete disinterest in and inability to comprehend the applicability of Veblen's "Conspicuous Consumption" and the ethical precepts of Kant's Categorical Imperative, the philosophical core of deontological ethics.

Mea culpa. :shrug:

I should probably pay more attention to "(Economic) Might Makes Right" subscribers. :eyes:

[donco6]

39. Wow - 0-to-ad hominem in 8 seconds!

Can you bring the snarky down a peg?

I'm not a big fan of Kant, OK? I think his idea of free will is too simple, and does not recognize any of the determinist elements that impress upon man. And Kirkegaard is right when he says that we will always go easier on ourselves than on others when applying this categorical imperative.

Which is exactly what's happening here.

[TahitiNut]

41. Actually, Kant is quite determinist in his views, asserting that our very sensory abilities

... themselves circumscribe our possible range of choices against the conceptualization we have of our world. He clearly posits that all human actions have both causes AND effects. Even in observing "pathological necessitation" he acknowledges a large degree of determinism. To project otherwise on Kant's philosophies would be akin to arguing he was either unaware of or rejected any substance underlying Plato's Analogy of the Cave.

Nonetheless, there is nothing in my argument that relies at all upon such quibbles. I argue purely from the standpoint that we have an ethical duty to act in a manner that we would recognize as a maxim for all. I argue, in particular, that (economic) might does NOT make right. I steer clear of the amphibology of 'right' as an ethic and 'right' as a civil liberty and a 'right' which is actually an entitlement (power).


Regarding snark ...

Once upon a time on DU I ignored snark. It didn't work. (That's a consequentialist assessment.)
Once upon a time on DU I alerted snark. It didn't work. (That's a deontological assessment.)
Now I respond to snark with snark, proportionally. It feels better. (That's a sybaritic assessment.)

I'm nothing if not an experimentalist. :evilgrin:

[donco6]

42. And I agree with your central tenet:

Economic might does not make right.

I do, however, think that we're piling on Edwards, when for all we know half the Senate has even BIGGER houses. And I'm NOT a fan of Edwards. And yes, conspicuous consumption poses an ethical dilemma, but I don't know what Edwards is facing in living his life. Does he feel he is compelled to have such a large estate due to something I don't know about? Does he feel "backed into a corner" with no other option? Or did he just build it because he can? I dunno.

And your snark was bigger than my snark. :evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

43. Well, it's not "we" piling on Edwards.

I'm really not piling on Edwards - I'm piling on American "culture." I still rather like Edwards - with reservations. (I prefer Kucinich - even though he does a very poor Tennessee Ernie Ford imitation.) I don't believe Edwards's any better or worse in this specific regards than 'America' in general. At the same time, anyone who'd aspire to be President should, imho, be better (a 'best foot') ... and it's a matter of individual opinion WHERE or HOW MUCH they should be 'better.'

Just because folks are indlined to defend Edwards against real or imagined assaults, doesn't mean that his house isn't emblematic/symptomatic of the AmeriMalady of consumerism and conspicuous consumption. I also don't think it's arguable that such consumerism is a huge factor in the politics of global warming. So, to that extent, it's a valid subject for discussion, imho.

Insofar as the "because he can" ... that's a dog's excuse, not a human's. :silly:


Oh ... and my snark was better, not bigger. :evilgrin:
Just because I'm male, doesn't mean I don't value quality more than size. (I just did my Kegels.)


P.S.: In that vein, the best house I owned was 2600 sq' ... and $100/sq' ... in the early 90s. Quality, not quantity. See? :dunce:

[donco6]

46. I remember your fondness for Kucinich.

I think another problem I have with the categorical imperative is the way it robs you of the chance to use the "live and let live" statement. Everyone wants to say, "Well, his having a big house isn't hurting you, so just butt out." But if his having a big house IS hurting me through the expansion of the strip mine next door to gather copper ore for his surround sound wiring . . . well, suddenly the whole thing becomes a lot more complicated. I get it - really. In that sense I can see the validity of the conversation, at the least.

I guess I just cringe at the idea that somewhere there is a morally obligated figure on square feet per person - beyond which you are imbibing in evil and contributing to the utter demolition of human achievement. And what dictator is going to set this figure? And do I want to live in a world where EVERY aspect of human existence has to be run through this "Worthy-o-Meter" to see if it's morally justified? I don't think I can trust my own mind to come up with it - I mean, I don't think my 2,700 sq ft house is too big now - it's actually a downsize from my previous house. But maybe I'm kidding myself and the world is hurtling to its doom because of me. AAAAAGGHGHGHG!

OK, so I have a tendency to want to run things out to what I see as a logical conclusion, and perhaps that's my downfall here. But point out where I'm mistaken.

And yes, your snark was much better - mine was rushed and emotionally-based and I had a hangover from last night. Gimme a break - I'll work on it. :evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

49. Did you know that Rawls is a "philosophical descendant" of Kant?

"Live and let live" is not a license to do harm ... or stand back while harm is done. A duty-based (deontological) ethical system is rarely prescriptive of inaction, imho, despite the "do no harm" maxim. At the same time, 'harm' isn't license to lapse into consequentialist delusions of prescience. For example, "turning the other cheek" is clearly one prescription of a duty-based ethical philosophy.

I guess what I'm saying is that, while I can cast the decision of building such a house into my own ethical system for the purposes of making choices in my own life regarding houses ... I'm not given any kind of license to burn down his house or, under current social contracts, deny him the liberty of making such a choice. It is in such distinctions that both our liberties and limits lie, imho.

I've found that "less is more" and abandoning the consumptive assumption that my own happiness somehow resides outside of myself and in some "object of my desires" is both correct and difficult. Habits are difficult to break - even habits of thinking developed for so many years with the assistance of the Sears catalog.
:silly:

[TahitiNut]

45. I should probably note also that Kant was an 18th century man.

That was still an era (despite the 'enlightenment') where belief in "possession" and "the devil made me do it" was prevalent. The arguments and differing perspectives on how Kant regarded "free will" are legion in the philisophical literature, afaik, especially when it comes to people like Kirkegaard who adhered to a strong religious faith. Reading thee people is probably a bit like trying to translate a Symphony in D Minor to a Symphony in C major ... we not only have to contend with our contemporary viewpoints, we have to translate competing philosophical viewpoints into their own times and how one may have interpereted the other into that time.

While we like to accept "timeless" classics as pertinent to out times, we must recognize these works were both the product of and addressed and audience within their own times.

That said, if I felt I comprehended 5% of Kant's work, I'd probably be an arrogant ass. I don't. I can only use what I can to stimulate my own development, for better or worse.

If I were wealthy, I think I'd like to reenroll in a good Jesuit school and take philosophy courses at my leisure. I can't think of anything more challenging and stimulating academically. But I'd need to hire a coach/tutor, I think, to get the most out of it. I just ain't smart enough do do as well as I'd want to without crutches.

[donco6]

48. I'll admit, I don't think I EVER quite grasped existentialism.

But maybe that's the point?

I wonder how these guys would interpret the world if they were alive today? It would be very interesting.

[Rosemary2205]

22. The indictment is against wealth itself.

There's more than a couple posters on DU who won't be happy until every human on the planet is living in deep poverty. Hell, a few of them even wish for the death of humanity itself because just by living we fuck up the planet.

[rug]

27. Yes, we surely outnumber them.

[Tyo]

35. We must rise up against the capitalist exploiters

The red dawn is coming comrades. The day will soon arrive when the blood of the Bourgeoisie and the Big House Builders will fill the gutters. BMW drivers, at least those with 2003 models or later, will swing from the lampposts. People with boats over 20 feet long and those with more than one timeshare will face the righteous justice of the masses. ipods will be confiscated and burned and private ownership of prime ribeyes and bottles of wine costing more than $10 will be ended forever. Viva the Revolution!

[RiverStone]

37. Does anybody have a Global responsibility to others?

I may not chose the words "get on" because it's to damn easy for folks to take things personally. Within all these house threads, there is a strong Libertarian perspective which says - mind your own damn business!

So rather then overtly say - don't do it (which would piss folks off) - time and time again I refer to Al Gore's Global Warming concerns. I figure people would resonate with his words on DU, since Al consistently ranks as is the #1 Presidential choice in every straw poll I've seen here.

In response to your question, I say I'd like to remind or educate people what the consequences of building BIG or not energy-wise has on the one planet earth we all share. Simply indicting folks is not productive; who would listen to that?

I asked the same thing here this morning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x57317



cheers~

[leeroysphitz]

38. It's not about WEALTH. It's more about TIMING and JUDGEMENT.

Why can't some people recognize the distinction?

[donco6]

40. So because the Kennedy Compound was built in the 20s . . .

. . . it's OK, but because Edwards' house was built today, it's not?

Please continue.

[mondo joe]

44. Most of America isn't looking for a candidate who lives like Dennis Kucinich.

If the judgment or timing hurts Edwards, it's with a very small minority.