| richardhutnik said: If people rather not have it thank the robber or the person robbed, they can focus the question: Should the person who didn't want to help, be thanked for their money, if a robber took their money and gave it to them? Does the unwanting to help person deserve any thanks? Going with Robin Hood vs the unappreciative rich person makes the topic more interesting though. If one wanted to say Robin Hood in the story connects to government, then Robin Hood should be thought of as the legistlative branch, because they are the ones who pass laws that reallocate wealth/income, the way Robin Hood does. |
You know, thinking about it more... i'd have to say definitly.
I mean... if you think about it.
Say your in a cave in... and nobody has any water except for one guy. He doesn't want to share because he doesn't know how long you'll be there.
The group makes him share... and you are later saved after a day or two.
If you remove him from that situation... nobody has any water... everybody dies. Douche or not... the people in the caves lives. It's the same with government, and "argueably" Robin hood...
The only outlier with Robin hood was that the Nobility in Robin Hood didn't do any productive work, only taking taxes and cutting off great swarths of land for hunting and timber and labor and such.
Really... the evil nobles in Robin Hood make a better replacement for government I suppose. Which makes sense... considering they were government at the time. Afterall the "Rich" Robin Hood robbed from were Tax men.
Were the Tea Party from England... they probably would be the "Robin Hood" Party. Well probably not, since they call a wealth tax a "Robin Hood" tax... but really... they should be.
