Robin Hood: The First Rothbardian?

[amadeus]

Robin Hood, he was also a Communist (If he existed, I personally haven't an idea.

I was inspired by the above post because for some time I had always wondered about this. Now, if I was to interpret the story of Robin Hood, I would imagine that he may have been the first Rothbardian rather than a communist. (Please take the Rothbardian label only to be somewhat serious and mostly exaggerated for humor. )

The story was that Robin Hood "stole from the rich and gave to the poor," but who at that time in England was rich? It was most certainly the princes, lords, priests, governors, etc. -- all of whom were members of the state establishment. Likewise, Robin Hood was also opposed to the Sheriff, the obedient muscle of the state.

So what does this make Robin Hood? Is he really the hero of the left he has often been painted as (by both left and right?) or is it something altogether different?

 

[azzaman333]

He was a myth created to give poor people hope.

So he's definitely communist.

 

[Bill3000]

Liberals and Socialists are generally pretty united in their opposition to aristocracy, really.

 

[amadeus]

Liberals and Socialists are generally pretty united in their opposition to aristocracy, really.

Liberals in the liberal sense or liberals in the leftist sense? It seems our more broadened worldviews tend to end us up in semantic debates with some of our overseas friends that use "liberal" in the sense of being generally more inclined towards increasing individual liberty rather than scaling it back.

 

[Bill3000]

Liberals in the liberal sense or liberals in the leftist sense? It seems our more broadened worldviews tend to end us up in semantic debates with some of our overseas friends that use "liberal" in the sense of being generally more inclined towards increasing individual liberty rather than scaling it back.

Liberals in the universal sense, so classical, market, social, conservative, progressive, or whatever. I'm not talking about debate between the levels of individual liberty and social justice once a society not based on aristocracy is established, just in their opposition to rule by an elite hereditary aristocratic class.

 

[Mad Man]

He was a myth created to give poor people hope.

So he's definitely communist.

thats funny, I was under the impression he was at least partially based on a real Pearson.

 

[YonatanBlum]

Putting aside that in all likelihood Robin Hood did not even exist, the nobles from which he theoretically stole were, at the time, certainly not a part of some "state-establishment." To the contrary, the vast majority of medieval aristocrats (and this is a big yet mostly truthful generalization,) were opposed to further political centralization and were always ready to screw their "King," and thus the idea of the "State," over. E.g. Magna Carta.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I guess that makes Styenka Razin the first von Mises.

 

[mechaerik]

Robin Hood will redistribute your wealth. Therefore he is a Commienazisocialfascist.

 

[azzaman333]

thats funny, I was under the impression he was at least partially based on a real Pearson.

I don't let facts get in the way of a good post.

 

[civ_king]

he was a definitely leftist, he wanted to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor (the converse is called "laissez faire Capitalism")

 

[classical_hero]

He was a myth created to give poor people hope.

So he's definitely communist.

Bravo.

I really hate how people put modern spin on things that were not even in consideration back then. most people were more concerned about general living that where they were communist or not.

 

[Glassfan]

There's a new Robinhood movie out next month - Russel Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Ridley Scott. See RottenTomatoes.

I think Robin Hood was a real character - Although much modified. An early New Testament Communalism was practiced in Sherwood Forest. Naturally, a community in conflict with a corrupt civil authority becomes militant and lives by propogandistic slogans - "Steal from the rich..."

 

[Weik]

He was just a simple thief. He stole from the rich because the poor didn't have anything he could steal. That he gave to the poor should be interpreted as he bribed the poor into not revealing his hiding place.

 

[ArneHD]

He was loyal to King Richard if I remember the story correctly. He wanted depose Richards oppressive brother and create some justice, all of which strikes me as more a social democratic goals rather than communist, or even socialist.

 

[holy king]

thats funny, I was under the impression he was at least partially based on a real Pearson.

so was jesus, but you do not believe a man once walked over water, do you?

 

[Benefactor]

so was jesus, but you do not believe a man once walked over water, do you?

It is physically possible to rob people and give the money away though .

 

[Mad Man]

so was Jesus, but you do not believe a man once walked over water, do you?

actually yes, I am a Christian you know