I feel the urge to reiterate:
This thread is entirely based on semantics.
You take one meaning of "piracy" and One Piece is legitimately about pirates.
You take another meaning and suddenly it's not.
In other words, this thread is all about interpreting the meaning of the word "piracy" and assessing the events in One Piece to evaluate if it fits your particular interpretation.
Sigh.. I didn't really want to get into this, but you are kind of forcing the issue. When it comes down to it, all discussion of themes in any subject is based around semantics (the differing interpretations of what words or symbols represent.)
You can't come to any conclusion on any debate subject unless you agree to the terms of discussion through semantics. So, in this thread I gave a standard definition for piracy and asked people why piracy by this definition is so rare in a story about pirates. People are free to say that my definition of piracy is incorrect and thus we may come to a consensus that if it is defined one way then it is prevalent in the story, but that if it is defined another it is sorely lacking and it would be nice if more of it were shown. As long as both definitions are considered valid by both sides than we come to a better understanding of alternate ways to view the One Piece saga.
Success! All sides of the discussion learned new ways to see the object of discussion! That's the point, isn't it?
You however come in and condescendingly attack the nature of the discussion as pointless. Not only is this rude and counterproductive, but if you can't withstand debates over the semantics of themes, then you should really go to another forum.
95% of the threads on this board have semantical differences as the basis for the different views in discussion. I've really enjoyed, for example, Aldrich's arguing with all comers about whether a characters "strength" is their physical prowess as he contends, their sum fighting ability a la DBZ and other manga, or their willpower/moral fiber as in Usopp's Strong Warrior of the Sea. These are all differing viewpoints over the semantics of the word "strength." All are valid interpretations and all add to the discussion.
Another example is the years old running discussion over Oda's use of the word "Nakama." Also, we're still wondering about what is meant by Shanks' "ambition" that he used so impressively on Whitebeard's ship. Even the discussion about the change and significance of Whitebeard's pirate insignia counts as arguing over semantics.
There is nothing wrong with arguing over semantics. These arguments only become pointless when neither side is willing to recognize the other's different use of the same term. That boils down to everyone talking over each other's head. However, as long as both sides are willing to listen to the other's point of view, the analysis of semantics becomes an extremely relevant tool for highlighting the motivations behind differing viewpoints. Thus the problem isn't having differences over semantics, it's the unwillingness of the parties in the debate to attempt to understand the viewpoint of the other side. Discussion of semantics is integral to that endeavor.
However, these kinds of discussions are pointless to you. So please, go troll somewhere else. Unless, of course, you want to debate the semantics of the semantics of semantics (which I've learned from past experience really IS quite pointless.) [/rant]