Robin Hood is...

[Hitro]

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.

 

[amadeus]

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

 

[Hitro]

So theft is always evil but assassinations can be good?

 

[Archer 007]

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

Both are illegal.

 

[tonberry]

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?

 

[amadeus]

There are always exceptions to rules.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
There are always exceptions to rules.

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

 

[Eastern Knight]

#4, seemed like a good choice.

 

[Hayek]

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.

 

[Pongui]

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!

 

[WickedSmurf]

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

 

[Eastern Knight]

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

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

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
There are always exceptions to rules.

Like this one?

 

[SanPellegrino]

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

 

[cgannon64]

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.

 

[Free Enterprise]

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.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Moved to History...

 

[cgannon64]

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.

 

[SanPellegrino]

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.

 

[privatehudson]

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.