Ok, yes another issue about poverty and so on.  This one is one I had wonder about.  It connects to gratitude, and came out of a reply someone said in another forum.  I will reframe it with Robin Hood.

Say, you have a region or a country, with Robin Hood going about and stealing from the rich to give to the poor.  The rich in this country are fairly selfish and don't want to have the poor get help, and do nothing to help (most don't).  Not saying that all the rich are, but a lot don't.  Robin Hood specifically targets those rich who don't want to, and don't do anything to help the poor.

The question here is this: If the poor are interested in showing gratitude towards someone for getting help, is it more appropriate for them to show it to Robin Hood who uses robbery to get them money, or the rich people who didn't want to have the money go to the poor?

It can actually be a deeper philosophical question then you'd think.

Afterall, many cultures who killed animals to eat, ended up thanking the animal.  Not the hunter... and if it weren't for the evil rich dudes in the first place... there would be nobody to rob... and therefore no wealth to be distributed to the people.

Not that i think Richard was going there.  I think he's just trying to create the most strawman arguement possible to force people to either avoid the thread or choose Robin Hood... Which you obviously would in western culture.

Then try and piggyback that onto a point painting the US government as Robin Hood.... ignoring the fact that most rich people do seem interested in helping the poor and that we already have a welfare system that pretty much makes starvation unheard of in the US.

Which in general was one of the two main issues behind Robin Hood more so then "take from the rich and give to the poor."  That people were starving, and couldn't eat... often times even though food was always right there. (No poaching in the king's forrest and all that.)

As such, I'd say Robin Hood, but I can see the arguement for Both.

What is put to the test here is intention vs outcome.  In this, one should be thanking a thief for getting help, but they did something.  One would think that it would be appropriate to thank the person who originally had the resources, but they didn't want to give it.

In my case, this comes from another forum, with myself ending up getting public assistance, and the person in question was outright hostile to myself, and he was totally opposed to welfare.  He then replies in one thread "Aren't you going to thank me?" because he paid taxes, but didn't want welfare to be given and certainly wouldn't of helped me in person.

And it is a deeper philosophical question than would appear on the surface.  It goes to, as stated before, outcome and intention.  Like, take another case of an evil genius who tries to destroy the world, but saves it.  Do you thank him for what he did when the intentions were evil?  There are multiple other ways to frame this and make it even more tricky to determine the outcome.  But, in this, one gets deeper insights, the way they do with a koan.

I tend to go this way.

Thank someone who did something good for me meant to. (Obvious)

Thank someone who who did somethign good for me and didn't meant to in a nuetral action.  (I benefited)

Say nothing to someone who did something good for me and meant to do me harm.  (I benefited, but thanking them would likely make them upset.  So not thanking them is the better for them.  If I think the thank you would make them feel better though, i'll say it.)

Try to not be upset at someone who meant to do something good for me, but injuerd me, point out what they did wrong, and probably get upset if they refuse to accept they made a mistake.

Try to not be upset at someone who did me direct harm and meant not to, and probably get upset if they refuse to accept they made a mistake.  (Like say accidently take my lunch or something mistaking it for something communal.)

Try not to be upset and something that hurts me indirectly that someone did.   It's indirect. (Like say,  If someone takes off work and has someone else work for them, which means that person can't cover for me... not really his fault.)

Try not to be upset and someone who intentionall tries to harm me... and instead just isolate msyelf from them, cause fuck it.  Not worth the stress.  If later they admit their mistake AND make restitution likely involving a penalty based on seriousness... i'll reintegrate them.

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.

Robin Hood should steal is knowledge and teach the poor how to prosper. Better yet, teach the poor how to teach others how to prosper as well.

The poor should show gratitude by supporting themselves.

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.