An interesting thing came up in Atlas Shrugged as I was reading it today. One of the characters mentions that Robin Hood is the greatest, most evil person ever to live, because he stole from the rich and gave to the poor. What do you think of this? Is stealing from the rich, even if they are corrupt, immoral? Or is it only moral if he stole from the corrupt?

EDIT: I voted Option 2. I hope the poll options are clear and all options are presented.

I voted the second option; that it's okay if they're corrupt. Sometimes you just have to take justice in your hands.

Evil, but necessary. The poor need to be helped.
I think she meant it as an analogy to taxes. ;)
Otherwise, I choose option 2.

Originally posted by archer_007
Evil, but necessary. The poor need to be helped.
I think she meant it as an analogy to taxes. ;)
Otherwise, I choose option 2.

I know. In fact a few moments after the guy talks about how he is goign to return every cent a character paid in income tax. :crazyeye: But that is another thread.

Anyway, taxes dont' necessarily return things to the poor. Look at Bush, for example. ;)

Why steal at all? If he wants to help the poor, why not help them earn their own money / improve their own lives rather than teach that the only way out of their lot is to take from someone else? Truly evil : options 1 and 5 both apply, I am voting 1.

- Narz :king:

evil theft is wrong, besides he could have tried to help the poor in an honest way. mabey use his excellent archery skills to win tournements and then give his money to the poor.

An example of our system of "good" and "evil" being woefully simplistic.

Well the question is who is the greater villain: Robin Hood or the Duke of Nottingham? We can certainly not pretend that the Duke "earned" all of his possessions. Property is most definitely theft in this case - our theoretical Duke is a paragon of his age and class, a lounging aristocrat who "earns" his luxurious life through the backbreaking labor of commoners who, as his subjects and tenants, are essentially slaves. In the Crusading Age of England [around 1200] where RH is set:

-My lord's "freemen" laborers can't leave the estate without his permission
-They must bake their bread in his mills and bakeries and pay a fee for it
-They cannot sell a piece of land they own outright without giving him part of the profit; most commoners did not own their fields anyway
-They had to harvest his fields for him for free, and would be fined besides if any of the laborers in their family were sick or injured
-Even when harvesting their own crop, they must be ready to drop everything and come and harvest his, leaving theirs to rot
-They must let him plant his fruit trees in their fields, and trample them in gathering the fruit
-They must not build fences around their land to keep out wild animals and pests for this would impede My Lord's hunting
-They must not kill doves or other animals belonging to My Lord which came to feast on their crops
-They must sit up at night whipping the ponds to keep the frogs quiet
-They paid far heavier taxes than My Lord - when My Lord paid taxes at all
-Their wages were determined beforehand by the magistrate, who was often My Lord himself
-Sumptuary laws regulated the amount of property-wealth a commoner could possess
-Their daughters were not safe from My Lord's attentions - or the Bishop's - and when they married they often must pay a fine to both for depriving them of le droit du seigneur
-My Lord could imprison who he wished, and was the law and the prophets on his estate
-My Lord could murder a commoner at will if he were of royal blood or high status; if he were a lower aristocrat he must pay a fine. If a commoner even attacked an aristocrat he would be hanged; if the aristocrat were of high status, even if the commoner drew a thimbleful of blood, he would be tortured to death and all his family would be hanged as well.

Under these circumstances, Robin Hood was ENTIRELY justified, and Ayn Rand's opinion can and should as usual be discounted entirely.

I am quite amused by the "Maybe he should have helped them HONESTLY" people. You mean, to make up for the wealth that was daily being robbed from them?

Maybe its not considered slavery because they didnt use whips. :rolleyes:

I'm certain some people here will call him an evil Communist looking to take down America.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

Under these circumstances, Robin Hood was ENTIRELY justified, and Ayn Rand's opinion can and should as usual be discounted entirely.


:lol:

I had a good laugh when she hinted that taxes are evil. I'm sure I'll come up to a tirade on that in the end of the book.

So far that book seems to have been a good idea (communism sucks) taken to a bad extreme.

OK, back on topic...

Well, I could go on about how much I hate Ayn Rand's writing, but I think the mods might like it better if I stuck to the topic.

Let me just say that the serfs of the Middle Ages weren't slaves - since they themselves could not be bought or sold, they were not slaves in the sense of the word. They were, however, bound to the land. That is, they were forced to stay on the land that they were born. This system started when free peasents gave up their land and liegence to a feudal lord for protection. Damn, still off topic...

Voted 'Evil, but necessary. The poor need to be helped.' No matter where you go in the world, there will always be somebody who's down on his luck, who could get back on their feet with some assistance. There's also those who may wish to be productive, but can't due to some other factor.
Stealing is wrong, no two ways around it. However, my personal belief is that charity is more important.

The Robin Hood example is a bit misconstrued.

IIRC, the rich that Robin was stealing from were Tyrants. In this instance, I see no moral issue stealing or disembowling them.

However, to persecute the rich solely for being rich and steal from them is wrong.

Option 1

edit: As an aside, I find it amusing how much Rand has been mentioned in the last 6 months, and 95% of the time its not even me mentioning it.

Originally posted by newfangle

IIRC, the rich that Robin was stealing from were Tyrants. In this instance, I see no moral issue stealing or disembowling them.

...

Option 1


So why did you vote Option 1?

BTW, stick around for my thread on taxes, newfangle. Maybe you can enlighten us on your taxless society in it. ;) :p

If *corrupt* means "uses force to attain any sort of end", then my vote goes for option 2.

Second option.

I accidentally clicked on 3 :blush: I meant 2 of course. Anyway the question is a moot point because in Robin Hood's time there was no such thing as an honest, productive rich person. The middle class was basically nonexistent; you had serfs and lords and that's about it.

Considering that Robin Hood is a purely mythical character, I feel justified using idealism in my answer.

Evil, because stealing is wrong. Even if the rich person is corrupt and evil himself, that does not justify stealing. If he wanted to be a champion for the poor, there are honest ways he could have done it.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
I accidentally clicked on 3 :blush: I meant 2 of course. Anyway the question is a moot point because in Robin Hood's time there was no such thing as an honest, productive rich person. The middle class was basically nonexistent; you had serfs and lords and that's about it.
I voted 3 for that reason. Whoever was rich at the time became it by something different than being productive or "hard working".

The first option. It's still theft, even if you have excuses and justifications to say so.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The first option. It's still theft, even if you have excuses and justifications to say so.
It's also murder to assassinate a dictator. I would say neither is evil.

Cute, but ridiculous. Assassinations and theft are two entirely different areas.

So theft is always evil but assassinations can be good? :lol:

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Cute, but ridiculous. Assassinations and theft are two entirely different areas.

Both are illegal.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Cute, but ridiculous. Assassinations and theft are two entirely different areas.

That's mean I can kill Saddam Hussein but I should not rob him?

There are always exceptions to rules.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
There are always exceptions to rules.

Like stealing for a greedy Duke who stole his wealth to start with. :p

#4, seemed like a good choice.

This is a little complicated since Robin Hood stole what the local authorities had initially taken away from the peasants through taxes, so he sort of just "stole it back", but generally, it's wrong to steal from the rich no matter what, so I went with option #1.

I very nearly voted OK to steal but from the honest and productive rich. Then I looked to my own wealth, frankly, and a little window opened through the self serving web of lies and I have to say I can't be so sure my own wealth owes to honest production. And I'm a peasant, knowing much of this came by trickery and injustice, tallying my profits at the expense of others, so how can I defend Robin Hood's "dinner guests"? Any of them.

I can't defend Robin Hood either, but given the choice, I'd rather live in Sherwood Forest!

It is okay to do anything as long as you don't get caught. ;)

There we go, I've finally found a memorable quote. :p

*Memorizing WickedSmurf's post like memorizing verses from the Bible*

Originally posted by rmsharpe
There are always exceptions to rules.

Like this one?

:lol:

I am not sure about Robin Hood, but I guess the peasants were anglo-saxons, while the nobles were normans thus conquerors which stole the land from the anglo-saxons, so to fight them is always justified (the angles and saxons stole the land themselves a few centuries ago but that is another story :))

btw, you just can't compare this to modern-day situation, no noble was wealthy because he worked so hard... FORCE was the power of these days not money

Originally posted by SanPellegrino

btw, you just can't compare this to modern-day situation, no noble was wealthy because he worked so hard... FORCE was the power of these days not money

Couldn't you say that money has replaced force? Rich people who are corrupt nowadays don't use force at all, but that doesn't make them any more justified.

Robin Hood could become a reformer.....

The Aristocrats do not count as capitalists due to the fact they need a government to perpetuate their illicit methods of attaining wealth. Therefore whilst Robin Hood and the Aristocrats fight it out a revolution should begin to destroy the old order. The answer probably is, both Robin Hood and the Aristorcrats are thieves. Unless he is giving back the money siezed by serfdom entitlements. In either case the best option is to destroy the old order or convince them to end their (the Aristocracy) woefully inaquate ways.

Moved to History...

You're taking this too literally, XIII. Its about the principle of the thing - is it OK to steal from the rich?

Move it back I say; I want my wider audience.

Originally posted by cgannon64


Couldn't you say that money has replaced force? Rich people who are corrupt nowadays don't use force at all, but that doesn't make them any more justified.

of course you are right, I just wanted to say that the Robin Hood analogy is totally flawed and lacks any point.

btw, rich people today use force too, but it isn't that obvious.

Well.... Strictly based on what we know of him, which aint much he wasn't any of those options as we have no idea what he did or didn't do. Assuming that the legends are true is dangerous, some claim he fought for the "true king" in Richard and that the taxes imposed on the people of the time made John unpopular. Considering the taxes were imposed by the "true king" who spent about 2 years of his reign in the country and well over a decade out of it fighting expensive crusades and getting himself captured (therefore needing a ransom) it seems a little biased to me.

The debate about what his supposed actions were and whether they were justified I will only say that he was probably little more than a thief who became a legend, perhaps he did do some good, who knows, but I doubt he was the wonderful, gracious and generous man of the legends.

Oh, sure, move it to History where no one will ever notice it again :p

I say Robin Hood was exercising his constitutional right to rebellion against an unjust ruler.

you shouldnt steal from the rich because the poor end up being rich and before u realise it your stealing from the poor who were once rich

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
I say Robin Hood was exercising his constitutional right to rebellion against an unjust ruler.

I don't believe that was a part of the English constitution in those days.

Another fine case that two wrongs don't make a right.

If you think it's ok to steal from someone who's richer than you remember... there's always someone poorer than you.

I vote you should just stop reading Rand. There are countless better things to pour into your brain than that drivel.

Robin Hood was an altered version of the Green Knight, anyway. He stealeth whatever he wants, for it is he who giveth in the first place. :p

Robin Hood was just a highwayman with a good P.R. guy. Of course the reality is that he stealeth from the rich and he stealeth from the poor and he keepeth for himself.

And according to the movie "Shrek", he speaketh with a French accent. Why, I was never able to figure out.
:confused:

Where's the "Neither because Good and Evil do not exist as far as I'm concerned?"

That said (and mostly meant as joke), there is one note I'll make here - RH wasn't particularly communist-ish.

Argument for "He was a before-the-fact communist" : He took money from the riches and gave to the poor. Hence the communist baseline of equalizing the riches between everyone.

Counter-argument for "He was just as much a before-teh-fact capitalist" : He took the tax money and returned it to the people who had originally earned it instead of letting the administration have it. Hence the capitalist baseline of letting people benefit from the fruit of their labor and let them use it as they will.

While it could be said that RH was fighting the riches to help the poor, it could just as much be said that RH was fighting so that the peasants benefitted from their labor instead of the local administration benefitting from most of it through tax.

In the end, what RH really was (by the legends) is a precursor of the end of feudalism. and nothing really more. To try to make him out as a communist or capitalist - when he could be argued as both - is just useless demagogy.

As for wheter or not he was wrong or right...I say he was as wrong or as right as the American revolutionary. They were, after all, rebelling against their legitimate government of the time which is a pretty big crime last I checked.

But then, I'm of the group that believe that there are reasons that can justify comitting most crimes (IE, it's possible that the situation will justify doing somethign that is by law a crime), from rebellion to murder (self-defense for starter, assassination of a dictator for a second one) (rape is the big one I don't see justifiable at present).

People are still reading Ayn Rands crap? :cry:

Only evil if he steals from rich people who EARNED their wealth. If he returns money stolen by particular rich people, I don't see any evil there.

Hmmm... if one thinks of Evil as Selfish, then Robin Hood clearly isn't that evil.

I don't think stealing is right, but it's more acceptable if there's no personal gain involved...

Contrast with the Norman tax collectors he was competing against...

Sorry, no item on the poll fitted my understanding of "Our Rob". I live in Nottingham, by the way...

If Rand states that Robin Hood was the most evil man in history, comparatively speaking that means that the tax collectors (whom he stole from) were the good guys.

Just imagine if a Libertarian had read that. They'd surely think Rand was some sort of pinko commie.

one of ur options mitions something aobut the poor not workign for it?? how chold thay work for it?!? ther slaves and surfs!

Originally posted by Kafka2
If Rand states that Robin Hood was the most evil man in history, comparatively speaking that means that the tax collectors (whom he stole from) were the good guys.


That's ironic, because Rand hates tax collectors too.

In case anyone is still wondering, I gave up on Atlas Shrugged. It got boring and overdramatic, there were way to many reptitions of the moral, and the last nail in the coffin was when I opened up another book and remembered what complex characters are. :p

In retrospect the book was worse than I imagined. If you look at it again you see that none of the characters are real. They have no friends, they do nothing mundane. All they do is work, think about work, think about the dramatic battle between good and evil, and complain. :lol:

Now I'm reading books with a little more human characters, finally...

Originally posted by Octavian X
Well, I could go on about how much I hate Ayn Rand's writing

Forgive me if this off topic, or stupid but... Who is Ayn Rand?

Ayn Rand was an author/philosopher born in communist Russia who moved to America and founded the "Objectivist" philosophy which holds:
*There is no god.
*Selfishness is the highest form of morality.
*Taxes are a form of violence.

Exactly. Note Sir Oswulf's comment about taxes, and my own about tax-collectors.

Rand made the classic Libertarian error. She was so pre-occupied with preserving the crystalline purity of her own logic that she neglected to take a step back, view it in contaxt and say "Oh hang on! That's all bollocks, isn't it?"

Rand said the legend of Robin Hood, as it survives to the present day, is what the true evil was. If the myth was "He stole from corrupt thieves and gave the money back to those who earned it" was what was said, I'm sure she would have had no problem with him. Instead of that, however, the myth is "He steals from the rich to give to the poor", which was the clearly immoral ideal she denounced.

If you look at the character who said the piece about Robin Hood - Ragnar Danneskjold - you'd see he was doing the exact same thing that Robin Hood purportedly did. Except he made clear the distinction between the theives and the rich. In Atlas Shrugged, the theives were the tax collectors.

It's easy to see why Robin Hood's legend is popular - people unable to achieve prefer to think of themselves as exploited by the rich. In the times of Robin Hood, they actually were.

cg, you really missed the point of the book. It would not have succeeded if the characters were more "real". It's a book about ideas, not the triviality of a person's common life. Rand describes her philosophy in the clearest way possible.

Oh well. At least you tried to read it before you called it crap.

lol--Love the summary, Kafka2.

Yes, the have-nots often feel exploited by the haves. The fact remains, however, that in better than 99% of cases wealth and ease result from being born into the right family. As much as Rand protests that laisse-faire (sp?) capitalism funnels wealth to those with talent who work hard, it only comes anywhere near working with an equality of opportunity and resources which laisse-faire capitalism undermines.

But was Robin Hood evil? To the extent that he was an individual, no. I believe that there is enough 'good' and 'bad' in each of us that the term 'evil' doesn't fit.