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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Both libertarian and socialist? Sounds like an anarchist.
ReplyDeleteWell, 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.
ReplyDeleteCould it possibly be that political ideologies are not neatly divisible into polar extremes? ;-)
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.
DeleteI wouldn't consider socialist and libertarian to be polar extremes, merely two ideologies emerging in America which might choose to view Robin Hood heroically.
ReplyDeleteI'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.
I dunno..
ReplyDeleteI 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.
Well, Robin Hood could not be an example for any democratic society, because the end DOES NOT justify the means.
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteAtheists!!!
ReplyDelete**************************
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg
************************************
see, you degenerates have last names like first names...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
************************************************************
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....
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/quick-clarification-about-boobquake.html
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:
http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm
I bought CHICKEN HEARTS for three dollars and fourty nine cents inside one of those styrofoam plastic wrapped containers. Good stuff. I WOULD ATTACH A PICTURE but you know.. explicit consent and such. Johnny Rotten told me you know..
DeleteIm not a discharge im not a loss in protein im not a throbbing squirm but the chicken hearts are. Told me that in the sog "bodies."
wrapped in yellow styrofoam. I think if robbin hood was an anarchist like johnny rotten and vicious then hed eat the chicken hearts with me. maybe sing about throbbing squirms. aborted fetuses and such.
guess it's really relative.. thats all it is.
chicken hearts are the poster child for wealth equality.
AND THE ATHEISTS! my goodness. WHAT DO YOU GAIN?!
haaah! we won! theres NOTHING!
you can believe in boobies and the spaghetti monster thats all holy or whatever.
consider the chicken hearts. the foam tastes good too.
fuck you very much!
ReplyDelete{{yawn}}
ReplyDelete::gives DM a look of boredom::
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!!!!
ReplyDeleteOh, 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!!!!
::snerk::
ReplyDeleteFor 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.)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.liberal-vision.org/2010/02/12/robin-hood-a-libertarian-hero-defamed/
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDelete