Forum Post: Robinhood misconception
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 9:23 a.m. EST by BrainC
(400)
from Austin, TX
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Robinhood robbed from the tax collector and gave back to the people. Not stole from the rich and gave to the poor.
I love Robinhood!
Thank you! I hate when robin hood is used as an example of redistribution of wealth, when he's actually just a proponent of fair taxes!
A myth can be anything you want it to be. That's why he's lasted....
Actually, that's not true:
In Robin Hood's time, the "tax collector" (Sheriff) represented the Throne and the Aristocracy (the rich).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood
He did not go to the rich and steal their money. He took the money that the people were paying to the King in taxes and gave that back to them.
6 to one, half a dozen to the other... Your point?
One is an example of lowered taxes on the people, the other is an example of redistribution of wealth.
It's really difficult to argue with someone who throws the fight.
Are you even trying to be coherent?
Why do you assume I want an argument?
How is that statement in-coherent? Did you not understand it?
I understand that you're trying to confuse the issue by painting tax collectors as the root of the problem. I understand that you're attempting to bolster the Capitalist doctrine of 'private' ownership.
But most importantly, I understand that the Sheriff of Nottingham and the King to whom he owed his allegiance bore a far closer resemblance (in spirit and in character) to the countenance of Wall St. Bankers (and their minions) than to any lowly, salaried, government bureaucrat.
I propose that the Sheriff and the King are the government and wall st. Put it in which ever order you like.
That's cool.
Does that mean we get to raise their taxes to pay for social programs?
Is that what Robinhood was doing? Taking money directly from them, or was he returning the money that was taken from the workers?
They weren't called 'workers' back then, they were 'serfs' and 'landless peasants'. Labels which pretty much included anyone who wasn't royalty or nobility.
Now we have the new aristocracy - the wealthy, parasitic, political over-class. The Kleptocratic Corporatocracy. The Neo-Fascist Anarcho-Capitalists.
Those who's mantra is: "Socialism for the rich, Capitalism for the poor."
I agree and understand the labels. They did not actually "work" for the king, they were simply the populace. That is semantics.
However, back to Robinhood and the misconception...
Is that what Robinhood was doing? Taking money directly from them, or was he returning the money that was taken from the "serfs"?
I hereby declare a ban on Wikipedia cut n paste
Can't compete with facts?
There is actually no proof robin existed so arguing about him is trivial to say the least
Can't be bothered reading them to be honest. If you see the number of links to wiki and YouTube, you'd never get anything done!
Do you get paid by the word or do they actually have some kind of Troll performance review?
How do they measure your 'productivity'?
That's just mean. I can sense your veiled insults... Why is troll the last insult when you know you're beaten?
Veiled?
You mean like your in-your-face Troll handle?
Perhaps you should try a material more rigid than 'foil' for your gauntlet...
Thought I'd fall into your web!
Foiled Again!
....Um,
Okay I'll stop now :|
Robin Hood is the best story ever! We need a bunch of Robin Hoods....
Actually no.
If there exist the need for such a vigilante, then things have really gone to shit.
Amen
[Removed]