Robin Hood gratitude conundrum...

[Kasz216]

richardhutnik said:

Kasz216 said:

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.

Well, I see it this way, so then, you give thanks to the only guy with the water who refuses to share and everyone would die, and you also give thanks to the thieves who stole his water to make it so others live to?  So, we give thanks to every step along the way to things in other context would be considered evil?

Ok, I am rereading what you did by comparing the Tea Party to Robin Hood.  Unless you are arguing the rich today are the government, and the Tea Party wants to take money from the rich who are the government and give it to everyone else, I am unsure how you make this connection.  Tea Party argues less regulation, less Obama, cut welfare payments, and balance the budget.  They would also argue a return to constitutional law.  They aren't even really in the same class of lawlessness that the American Tea Party folks were.  The rabble with Occupy would be more likely to break on importer boats and throw tea overboard (providing it was ecologically friendly) and end up keeping the papers and others stuff on the board, or keeping it to recycle.

Pretty much yeah.  Cause it saves your life.  Just how we fundamentally tend to excuse someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family morally.  What he did was wrong, and it doesn't change the fact that what he did was wrong, but he had a reason for doing so.

As for Robin Hood.. you've got it backwords.   Robinhood didn't really "Take from the rich and give to the poor."  in the stories.  He didn't rob from the wealthy trade unions for example.

He only robbed from King John, and King Johns Nobility and Taxmen.  In otherwords... the government. 

Robin Hood's objection wasn't that they were poor it was that the poor were overtaxed and forbidden to make use of the forests. 

Afterall, Robin Hood wanted the return of Richard and a repeal of the unfair taxes it's not like there weren't poor before then, and hell, Robin of Loxley used to be part of his "administration."

 

Nobody matches the lawlessness of Robinhood... obviously, however when you look at his goals... i'd question using Robin Hood thematically for more liberal acts.