Jesus: Communist Pirate

Jesus, that radical Marxist and his wandering commune of disciples and other followers who violated every reasonable principle of free market economics, shared what they had with each other in the belief that turning their backs on capitalist profit would lead to something good.

  

When Jesus gained access to some bread and fish without paying a dime...

He used his talents to lure new recruits and bribe current followers with free food by "multiplying" the original fishes and loaves to which he had no property rights...

We might note that while the short term results did not serve these utopian do-gooders very well, they were somewhat good for the imperial entertainment industry, providing crucifixion billboards, and the wildly profitable "Arena Survivor", and "The Weakest Luke" spectacles where a panel of lions "voted" contestants to shuffle off this mortal coil.

The unwary may ask: "What's the harm in freely sharing with others?"

To respond, I adopted a recent article on piracy by a left-wing unionist article to reflect the imperial view to provide better perspective.  Note that contributing electricity and computer resources for free to others is not called sharing or donating files, rather it is called theft and piracy.  Either of these terms is much more scary, being associated with perhaps murder, robbery, and/or perhaps rape.  "Sharing and helping" are virtues that we learn at our mother's knee, so it is hard to argue against them.  Read the reworded opinion piece excerpt below to learn how mainstream liberals today defend the imperial view, tyrannical structures, and justification for enslavement condemned by those with who put a greater value on rights of justice than on rights of "property".

Counterfeit fish and loaves were given out on the street. Pirate Christians distributed illegally copied fresh-baked bread and regional fish without any compensation to those who caught and cooked them. While people might think they're getting a steal when they eat an illegal copy of the next big sub-sandwich on the cheap, they're actually stealing from workers. It's theft, plain and simple, and people need to understand the detrimental impact it has on the working men and women employed in the fishing and baking industry and on the greater imperial economy.

The Empire's food industry supports millions of jobs and contributes zillions each year to the economy, according to merchants associations and the imperial treasury.

Theft of bread and fish results in the loss of jobs in these industries and jobs in other industries that otherwise would have been created, such as net-weaving, grain cultivation, and boat & oven building.

The notion that imperial leaders and rich merchants have no real worries is misleading.  Along with the fishermen and baker, there are droves of blue collar workers put at risk by miracles like this.  The scribes and craftspeople -- who handle the aspects of food making that many take for granted, such as farmers, shipwrights, plowmakers, firewood, mills, and saltmakers -- all lose money when people steal, rather than buy, food.

Those who work behind the scenes derive a substantial portion of their livelihood from secondary revenue that their work generates in what are called secondary markets -- foreign distribution, street vendor sales, and Arena meals -- long after initial distribution to such pirates and their disciples.  When bread and fishes are stolen, the downstream revenue dries up, and the health and savings of tens of thousands working men and women suffer, and that of their children. This in addition to the hardship suffered by workers if administrators for the government don't order as much food, since their prospects for taxation are diminished by theft.

Here we see the justification for the argument against "free sharing without payment".  This open freedom worldwide for food or culture is judged not only selfish and shortsighted, but it leads to the destruction of civilization based on corporations.  This is similar to arguments against freedom for slaves, where civilization was based on plantation food production: freedom meant that system would end, i.e.: destruction.  Freedom for Jews, where civilization was based on preserving racial purity of the most productive race, would be destroyed if core, defining virtues of nobility, patriotism, and hard work were abandoned. Such arguments are 96% sensible and in each case,  the Roman Empire, the Reich, and the Confederacy actually did pass into history, so in a way "destruction of the civilization" did occur.  Like chimp DNA, that 4% difference has huge consequences in behaviors relative to what we would call morality.

Its a shame that such a small difference of opinion is so difficult to perceive and bridge, especially to those who fear "stepping over" to the other side.