My discussion with an Occupy Portland supporter, Part 1

By Jeffery Reynolds (Scribe) on October 13th, 2011

So, I got into it on Twitter with a supporter of Occupy Portland on Wednesday.

It started out with him calling me a Tea Party fanatic and me accusing him of the sin of envy. I told him that the reason he thought I was a fanatic was because I was telling him things he didn’t want to hear. Instead of getting more heated, the conversation evolved into a respectful discussion of the issues that the protesters are trying to discuss. We both agreed to let each other blog the email dialogue that ensued. (We went back and forth most of the day, so I'm breaking this up into 3 posts).

Nice to meet you.
30 messages
Mike Rigsby
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:25 AM


Chances are you and I will never agree on stands but I have absolute respect for your fighting for what you believe in.

Thanks,

Mike Rigsby


Jeffery Reynolds
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:02 AM

To: Mike Rigsby

Hi Mike,



I actually think that we might find some common ground. I am no conservative idealogue, I am simply a seeker of truth and common sense.



So let's get down to it. Why do you think it's ok to redistribute a private citizen's wealth?



J


Mike Rigsby
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM

To: Jeffery Reynolds

My problem is, like a lot of the people in the Occupy movement, I have complaints and no answers. I'm not specifically against the redistribution of wealth.



I'm against the excessive collection of wealth while other people, who work just as hard or harder, suffer. I think EVERYONE should have the same chance to succeed when honestly they do not currently. Society is stacked against the common person, no matter how hard they work.



I refuse to believe that any professional Athlete, Executive, anyone, truly 'earns' hundreds of millions a year in income nor do they have any legitimate need for it. The truly "1%", although that term is ridiculous, literally accumulates more wealth than could be spent in their entire lifetime or their grandkids lifetime while people starve elsewhere who are working 2-3 jobs just to 'get by'.



At the absolute least I believe the massively weathy "1%" should carry an equal burden, equal to their wealth, to put a fair percentage of that wealth back into this country. Instead of using corrupt politicians, lawyers, and tax laws to shelter everything in other countries. I believe wealth should be used, by people and by the government and businesses, not literally sitting and collecting more wealth.



Idealogically I'm likely considered a Socialist but you and I both know that system doesn't actually work. It looks good on paper but never works when someone tries to implement it.


Jeffery Reynolds
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:38 AM

To: Mike Rigsby

Hmmmm.



So did Steve Jobs have too much wealth? What, in your mind, would make that unjustified? Wasn't he just a common man before he started inventing stuff? How bout Thomas Edison or Henry Ford?



And if you're a Socialist but admit that the system doesn't work, then a) why be a Socialist, and b) what system works better?



Should there be any cap on earnings?


Mike Rigsby
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM

To: Jeffery Reynolds

Sadly those questions fall into that category of what I said about not having any answers to what's a better solution. I fully believe Steve Jobs worked his way up from nothing and earned the right to live very well. But who decides what "live very well" means?



I don't believe Steve Jobs worked any harder than someone who works 2 or 3 jobs just to survive though.



I have huge respect for people like Bill Gates who has made billions of dollars but he also puts huge amounts of that money back into the economy, donates to charities, etc. He literally supplied computers to every single library in the country.



Earn all the money you want. I just think that after a reasonable point there should be some responsibility associated with that money. "With great power comes great responsibility". The problem all the truly wealthy have all the benefits with zero responsibility. All their wealth is sheltered in offshore accounts while they live like parasites off the people who are "less fortunate."



I'm not against being wealthy at all. I'm against wasted resources and wealth is a resource. It should be being put to use by everyone.



In theory Socialism is structured on a countries wealth and resources being gathered and equally distributed amongst everyone so that everyone was equal. Great in an unrealistic idealistic society. The problem is that system breeds corruption because the decision makers horde it. It breeds laziness because people get provided for whether they work for it or not. The concept of equality is nice, but there's no realistic means of reaching it.



I'm just as much against the 'Bottom 1%' as I am the 'Top 1%' because I'm also sick of people who are parasites, living on unemployment and welfare because our Government provides everything for them whether they work for it or not while our taxes are where that money is coming from. Realistically both the top and bottom minorities in this country are parasites, living off the center.



Eventually that system will collapse because either the "middle class" will disappear as they either manage to get rich and join the Top 1% or they burn out and fail and become that Bottom 1%.



I honestly do think there should be some kind of cap on earnings. Hell, even a cap of $1 mil a year would be prefectly reasonable. That's vastly more than anyone truly "needs". But then again, who enforces such a thing and how?



********

Part II of this series can be read by clicking here.

Part III demonstrates that my new friend really is a Tea Party type, but refuses to admit it.

Part II can be read here.