Sunday, May 9, 2010

Robin Hood: Libertarian or Socialist?

Suspend the anachronistic nature of the question, and help me discern whether the legend of Robin is more Libertarian or Socialist? It seems to be both: you have a libertarian who bears arms and fights tyranny, and you have a socialist who robs from the rich and gives to the poor. Is Robin Hood the perfect fusion of the two, a timely hero for modern America?


  1. Both libertarian and socialist? Sounds like an anarchist.

  2. Well, libertarians don't have a monopoly on bearing arms, nor on fighting tyranny. Also, I'm pretty sure that socialists wouldn't endorse "robbing" from the rich, but would gladly opt into a society where the wealthy were required to contribute much more than the poor to the public welfare.

    Could it possibly be that political ideologies are not neatly divisible into polar extremes? ;-)

    1. That's really doublespeak isn't it. Socialist wouldn't endorse robbing from the rich, but would require rich to contribute their money without their consent.

  3. I wouldn't consider socialist and libertarian to be polar extremes, merely two ideologies emerging in America which might choose to view Robin Hood heroically.

    I'm actually gonna go with SE and say he's probably more anarchist, because his actions show a clear conviction that justice is the responsibility of the individual.

  4. I dunno..
    I heard Robin Hood was in real life more of a business man..
    ..I like the legend tho.

    Im with Se, he must be an anarchist.

  5. Well, Robin Hood could not be an example for any democratic society, because the end DOES NOT justify the means.

    You cannot steal from the rich to give to the poor. You can work hard, earn money, and distribute it to the poor. Or gain the lottery and distribute the money to the poor.

    Today, what most resembles Robin Hood are totalitarian terrorist groups with a social arm like Hamas or, formerly, the IRA.

    The poor people receiving those gifts should never, ever believe that they are safe from those heroic revolutionnaries. They are indebted, and if need may arise, they might have to sacrifice their labor, their life or their children to the "Robin Hood" organisation.

    That's my personal opinion.

  6. Definitely Libertarian. The common view today is that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. However, that is only part of the story. In the Robin Hood stories, the townspeople are unfairly taxed by the Sheriff of Nottingham. Robin Hood stole back that which rightfully belonged to the taxpayers. That sounds pretty Libertarian to me, and it draws parallels to one of Ayn Rand's characters (Ayn Rand being an Objectivist) from her novel "Atlas Shrugged", Ragnar Danneskjöld.

  7. Atheists!!!


    see, you degenerates have last names like first names...

    how about I believe in WHATEVER I want - even in the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! - and you have nothing to say!

    let me show you the end results of this particular *ONE-DIMENSIONAL SCIENTIFIC MODE*
    of thinking that is called *CRITICAL THINKING*, which is completely divorced from
    any human objectives...

    this style has been perfected by dawkins, pz, randi and the other *NEW ATHEISTS*
    THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!
    hey, atheists don't even BELIEVE IN BOOBIES!!!
    they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!

    see, I just want to make it clear to the rest of you:
    jen is unable to see that there is a CONFLICT BETWEEN EROS & SCIENCE....

    see how we take a term and convert it into its AUTHENTIC POLITICAL DIMENSION - THAT
    OF LIBERATION - not just merely harmless expression...

    Visit for the BOOBQUAKE:

  8. {{yawn}}

    ::gives DM a look of boredom::

  9. I'm sorry. I'm one mentally disturbed jackass, aren't I? But it gets lonely up here just watching my videos. I KNOW JESUS HATES ME!!!!

    Oh, God, what have I done!!! I'm sick.

    DM is not my real name, I confess, it's really dennis (small d) I have no one to love me and atheists...ITS ALL YOUR FAULT!!!!!

    atheists, why don't you believe in BOOBIES? I do and they are all I think about night and day. *********************************Boobies or death********************************BOOBIES!!!!

  10. For anyone who is interested, there's a great discussion of this whole Robin Hood lib or socialist issue, which explore a lot of the historical and conceptual problems in working it out. (Some of the stronger entries are toward the bottom.)

  11. I know this is an old post but it's worth it to point out that while he "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor", as legend goes anyway, the "rich" were all subjects of the monarch who had become rich by way of taxation on the poor. There is no evidence those rich became rich in any other way but by the basis of their political clout.

  12. I think you don't truly know the actual historical Robin Hood, then. He may not have existed, but the period in which he is said to have lived is not one marked by "taxes," but was instead defined by a strict feudal serf system where nobles actually controlled and owned the land which peasants were tied to and obligated to work for very little compensation. Taxes had little to do with it, and were a component added to much later (post-Enlightenment) retellings.

  13. Watch robin hood 2010 full movie free click watch now. Bottom line is, that this movie was a waste of time. Maybe not AS big a waste as Avatar, but a waste nonetheless. I couldn't hear what the characters were saying, there were too many long talking scenes, the battles were confusing as to who was fighting who and why. The best moments in the movie where 1. when you can see the arrow leaving Robin Hood's bow in extreme slow motion, and 2. when the King screams in the weirdest way possible, "I declare him to be an OUTLAAAAAW!!" (It still cracks me up). Other than that, this movie is not worth seeing. It just doesn't work. Click watch movies free now.

    Russell Crowe seems to fat, too old, and too uninteresting to present a romantic or convincing Robin Hook to the screen. He tries to pull it off like an athletic shot-putter in what should be a ballet. Robin Hood should not be played like a gladiator. Gee, Sly Stallone could do same ( just as bad a job) as Crowe did for 10% of Russell's pay!The producers should have signed someone 20 years younger. .

    See more:

    I'm surprised by the performance of Academy Award Winners Ridly Scott, Cate Blanchett, and Russell Crowe. This movie is a disgrace to them. I have 3 reasons why this movie is bad. 1. Very boring 2. Has stuff that the watcher doesn't need to know about 3. A Disgrace. I got so flicked off at the end of the movie i just wanted to go up on the screen and tear it down. This movie felt like it was 5 hours long!!! I wasn't the only one asleep. I heard someone snoring in the front seat of me. It about a person who fights and becomes a hero and later his name turns in to Robin Hood. Come on actors/actresses try again! I'll give this a 2/10

    See more:


If your comment is too long, break it into multiple comments and post them all.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...