You ever heard of the term selective hearing? Well, when reading and quoting the bible, people tend to have some selective reading and interpreting. That anyone would ever use a defense of religious freedom to defend not treating someone like they would treat themselves is ludicrous. That anyone would believe that Jesus would be a right wing conservative is also nucking futs. If Jesus were to come down from his perch in almighty heaven, I don’t think that right wing activists would be his chosen people, at least not the extreme ones. Jesus’s politics, if you had to choose which one he would most likely resemble, would be Bernie Sanders. That’s no joke. Jesus, god bless him, would not be impressed with billionaires nor would he impressed with the gadgets on your Lexus. No. I’m guessing Jesus would more or less be more impressed by the immigrants crossing the borders trying to give their children a better life. Maybe the politicians that stand up to the cartels in Mexico and paid with their lives. Definitely Bernie, as Jesus pokes in the ribs about not believing in him in the first place, you see, Bernie is more Torah, less good book. Since I never met Jesus, Bernie could be right, but we’re hypothesizing here as if Jesus were to pay us a visit. While Jesus is anti-abortion, he is definitely pro choice. It was God that gave us the power of free will after all, if you are religious person and not an evolutionist. Another thing he would be would be fundamental socialist. While I don’t necessarily agree with socialism, I do agree with some of the principles of socialism.

While socialism was changed to replace the word people with government in today’s version, it was really meant to be the people’s control. Once you add a leader to the equation then what you have is communism. To have a few control the many is not really the way that socialism was meant to be. Capitalism is also a little defunct as it empowers the few, just not in the government. What you really need is a hybrid of these two concepts, it is really simple but maybe impossible to implement. Let’s see if you can follow me on this:

1. You take all the billionaires and tell them that they have to give their billions away, not all of it, just so they are left with between 1 billion and 2 billion and not to the public or to the government but to a relative or someone of their choosing
2. The person that gets that billion must start a business, it isn’t meant for their personal use, and employ people, therefore creating jobs. If the business succeeds and they make more than a billion in profit, once they hit two billion, they must now give it to someone, again, not all of it, just 1 billion
3. If the business fails and they lose a majority of that money, then they can go ask again or take the couple of million they have left and live happily ever after while the original billionaire, who was probably smart enough to make another billion in profit chooses someone else to bestow this grand endeavor\

What you have here is a recirculating of cash into the public and no one individual becomes, well, Bill Gates, no offense to him but he is just the most well known billionaire. Money keeps going back out into circulation and what you have is a capitalistic social program that would work because you are still extremely wealthy but not stinky rich. The re-circulation of capital is the most important thing to a capitalist society. Hogging the pork, while a little redundant, is anti-capitalism.

To do something like this though would mean to get every single democratic country on the planet to agree to enact a cap on how much you can profit, not earn. That’s were the socialist aspect enters the picture. But if you think about it, you would probably have less poverty, less crime, less health care problems and less borders.

I write, I read it and I know I’m not the first person to come up with this solution or the first person to think of this but I like writing it again, it’s kind of my philosophy.