Is theft wrong? Apparently, the answer to that question is not affirmative for an increasingly radicalizing American Left. If transgression is the spirit of the age, there are apparently no limits to how far the leftist intelligentsia will go to normalize Marxism, despite the historically documented evil perpetrated by adherents to that ideology.

In a recent podcast interview with two communist Millennials, New York Times culture editor Nadja Spiegelman questioned the inherent immorality of theft. The interview featured radical leftist podcaster and political commentator Hasan Piker and New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino.

The Times published the interview with the following title: “The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?” And the teaser read, “Why petty theft might be the new political protest.”

Speigelman posited the following idea: “I’m proposing a new term: Microlooting. People are taking small things from big corporations, and they’re feeling justified. But is it a slippery slope? What’s going on with our moral code?”

A quick aside: It is ideas like this that explain why Texas decided to display the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

What the Left has abandoned is any sense of a transcendent moral reality. When every social rule, norm, and value is boiled down to nothing more than a social construct, then the logical consequence is that there is no moral or ethical standard. What results from this kind of subjective thinking is a might-makes-right dynamic, in which the stronger set the rules so long as they have the power to enforce them.

What is lost in such a scenario is the all-important social cohesive agent: trust. I trust my neighbor not to steal from me, not because I believe myself to be stronger than he is, but because we share the same societal beliefs and values — that theft is not only a crime but, more importantly, it is morally wrong.

Unfortunately, Speigelman, along with Piker and Tolentino, has rejected the view that theft is objectively morally wrong. Asked whether he would steal a car, Piker answered, “I’m like, yeah, sure. If I could get away with it, if it was as easy as pirating intellectual property, I would do it.” However, interestingly, when asked if he’d “dine and dash from your local diner,” he answered, “No, I wouldn’t do that.” He added, “If I saw somebody doing that, I’d probably pay for their meal.”

What becomes apparent for both Piker and Tolentino is that their views on the ethics of theft are relative. To them, it’s both a situational and conditional question. They have little to no problem stealing from big corporations. As Piker said, “I’m pro-stealing from big corporations because they steal quite a bit more from their own workers.”

Those are definitely communist instincts. He further justified his view by employing a classic circular reasoning fallacy. He noted that big companies factor in shrinkage. “The lemons that you stole are factored into the bottom line of these mega-corporations regardless. And they still end up having increased profit margins because they no longer have to pay the cashiers that they used to hire, as opposed to this automated system, knowing full well that people are still going to be able to steal a lot more efficiently, as a matter of fact, through the automated process.”

So, because companies use policies to cover lost revenue from things like the reality that a small percentage of people will steal from them, this is evidence to both Piker and Tolentino that stealing from these companies is not only okay but justified. What about the literal cost of this theft imposed on honest customers?

But Piker doesn’t care. Speigelman asked, “But what about the argument that if everyone just starts stealing wantonly from these self-checkout machines, Whole Foods will eventually raise the prices?”

Piker replied, “Yeah, chaos. Full chaos. Let’s go. I mean, look, I’m in favor of fast and free buses and also government-owned storefronts. And two of those policies, the mayor of this beautiful city is currently working on.” (That’s a reference to Zohran Mamdani’s grocery enterprise.)

The objective for cultural influencers like Piker is to promote a communist revolution, a fundamental deconstruction of the foundational values upon which our great nation was built. The promotion of immorality, such as theft, is ultimately for political aims.

Piker himself is a wealthy man with an estimated net worth of $8 million. While he has dubiously claimed to be broke, the man would not be as wealthy as he is today if it weren’t for America’s free-market system.

The irony is that Piker has made himself rich by creating a business wherein he frames the hardworking, successful, and industrious who produce and provide all the wonderful products and services that make our modern living standards possible as the ultimate thieves and social pariahs of our day.

At its heart, this is the evil of communism. It preaches a message of hate and envy toward those with more, claiming, often contrary to the evidence, that they cheated and stole from others to acquire their wealth.

What’s troubling is that rather than dismissing hypocrites like Hasan Piker as fools and charlatans, they are heralded by leftists as thoughtful sages, advocating for the poor and downtrodden. In reality, they are wolves preying on the minds and feelings of the frustrated and uninformed.