Robin Hood

[rkwright]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1435832' date='Dec 18 2007, 05:05 PM']just to make this interesting...

one must keep in mind that the money he was taking was money which was taken by unjust taxes. he was not stealing from the rightful owner and giving it to the not rightful owner, he was taking that which was stolen from the poor through taxation and giving it back to them.

note that the poor did not suddenly become wealthy, they simply received back what had been taken from them.

if a man steals something from you, and you go out and steal it back from him, you have not stolen.

the wealthy of England were stealing from the poor through taxes which were unjust, and because Robin Hood had the means to do so without causing too much chaos to society, he formed a just opposition to that government's tyrannical theft. I dare say he meets all the requirements indicated for justifying a revolt against an oppressive government by the Catechism. that he used the threat of violence is no matter, for the theft which was going on was indeed threatening the lives of the poor, driving them into extreme poverty such that their lives were threatened. And it is always justified to threaten deadly force if you are defending someone else whose life is being threatened.

now, there are a lot of taxes nowadays that I consider unjust, but I could not justify attempting to steal them back from the US treasury or from the companies that receive them through pork-barreling because I don't have the means to do so without causing more chaos, without causing a worse situation than that which exists with those taxes; and they are not as threatening to people's lives as the unjust taxes were in Robin Hood's time.

but if ever a well-regulated militia of Merry Men formed under the pretense of the Second Amendment with a clear and decisive plan for stealing back that which has been stolen from us through unjust taxation, I might just have to join up. But only if their plan is solid enough that it would not cause a worse problem than exists now.

And now that I have thoroughly violated the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S.B. 1959), I await the federal agents. just kidding... I hope. lol [/quote]

The legal system in both England and America would disagree with you. Taking back something that you believe is rightfully yours is a question for the courts to handle, not the stronger of the two people. Allowing people to retrieve what they believe is rightly theres whenever and however they feel like it would lead to absolute chaos.

Also I hav never heard of anyone justifying the use of deadly force against economic threats. There are better systems in place to ensure economic justice than using force.

Edited December 19, 2007 by rkwright

[Justin86]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1435947' date='Dec 19 2007, 01:32 PM']Also I hav never heard of anyone justifying the use of deadly force against economic threats. There are better systems in place to ensure economic justice than using force.[/quote]
The American Revoltion doesn't ring any bells? Really, we're not alone here.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1435954' date='Dec 18 2007, 10:45 PM']The American Revoltion doesn't ring any bells? Really, we're not alone here.[/quote]

1 - The American Revolution was a revolution by an entire nation. It was not one rouge man trying to take justice in his hands (or a mere band of men).
2- The American Revolution began out of protests that were peaceful (in the begining, and note the British fired first at the Boston Masacare). The legislative and judicial system were tried and failed to secure the rights of the people.

Simply there was never an economic threat to any single colonist that caused them to kill someone. No one walked in and since they couldn't buy a stamp walked out and shot someone. (Unless you're from Texas where you can apperently use deadly force if someone is taking your neighbors property)

In our system today, the Courts are more than capable of returning stolen goods to thier rightful owner.

As for Robin Hood; that was a different world where the injustice of the court might mitigate his stealing.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Robin Hood was a hero!! One of my biggest role models growing up actually. Another big role model was Captain Kirk.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one; but sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Plus sometimes you’ve got the break the prime directive for the sake of justice and all that. Robin Hood rocks!

Sometimes "duty" and "morality" become nothing more than a means by which tyranny and oppression subsist. Robin Hood had the cojones to do what needed to be done in the face of evil. Sometimes the concrete situation of humanity is more compelling than formalistic systems of right and wrong.

If Robin Hood was real I'm sure he saved a lot of lives by being man enough to stand up against an evil establishment.

[S][N]

LOL owned

[dairygirl4u2c]

plus to add to the notions that you can't be roque even if they are taking a lot of taxes.

there's also arguments taht you're to abide by the law, even if you don't like it. unless it forces you to violate natural law, which isn't the case here.

any rationaolizations used here could probabably be used in many situations to break the law, that normally peple would say you can't do.

he never answered the question clearly... but jesus did say in reference to taxes... give to caesar what is caesar's and give to God what is Gods. i could see you arguing that jesus is being vaque enough to allow stealing, but, i'm the only one who's ever espoused that theory; it'd be interesting if others did too. based on what he said and conventiaonl interpretation, you should give taxes to them cause that' the law.

Edited December 19, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1436054' date='Dec 19 2007, 08:15 AM']plus to add to the notions that you can't be roque even if they are taking a lot of taxes.

there's also arguments taht you're to abide by the law, even if you don't like it. unless it forces you to violate natural law, which isn't the case here.

any rationaolizations used here could probabably be used in many situations to break the law, that normally peple would say you can't do.

he never answered the question clearly... but jesus did say in reference to taxes... give to caesar what is caesar's and give to God what is Gods. i could see you arguing that jesus is being vaque enough to allow stealing, but, i'm the only one who's ever espoused that theory; it'd be interesting if others did too. based on what he said and conventiaonl interpretation, you should give taxes to them cause that' the law.[/quote]
For once I have to say that I agree with Dairy here.

I also have to clarify, in light of some posts to come, that economic conditions can lead to to revolutions which can and tend to be violent. But I would agrue that most revolutions are not because of the economic conditions, but rather some injustice in the political system. Just because the country is in a depression doesn't mean we should revolt. If the country is in a depression and our congress keeps raising taxes and won't stop, maybe we have a cause here. I think Al makes this point implicitly in his plan to attack the US treasury when he says " I don't have the means to do so without causing more chaos," meaning, to me at least, everything else has failed.

However my point earlier still stands behind a long tradition of both English and American Law. You can't simply take back something you think is yours; that is the job of the courts. Secondly, I don't think Economic conditions can ever be the direct source of violence; that is an economic hardship can never truly threaten the life of someone.

[Socrates]

So the question is: Was Robin Hood just a robbin' hood?

I've never liked the whole modern "steal from the rich to give to the poor" moniker, as if Robin Hood were some kind of medieval socialist.

Robin Hood was a knight dispossesed by a tyrannical prince who levied tyrannical taxes.

If Robin Hood was alive today, he wouldn't be lobbying for Hillary or Obama, but would be an anti-tax right-wing crusader leading a militia, and possibly supporting Ron Paul (I said that just to smell of elderberries up to Big Al).

[dairygirl4u2c]

i wouldn't be opposed to al or soc's view.
i might argue when they asked jesus whether they should pay the tax, jesus didn't just say "yes"... he wanted to make it cryptic enough to allow room for interpretation.

[Dismas]

First, Robin Hood wasn't a proto-Socialist, as the bourgeoisie class had not yet achieved prominence, let alone ascendancy. The rich were land owners, and land owners were royals and nobles, and royals and nobles were the government.

Alright, so this Prince John made a pig's ear out of Ireland, and is forced to flee after only eight months of mismanagement. He had a reputation for treachery against his brothers and ineptitude in management and battle.

Now, John was in charge of England while Richard is crusading against Saladin. John's first act of business was to remove the unpopular chancellor and chief justiciar, William Longchamp, from power. That's all well and good, but then as Richard is detained by Leopold V of Austria and then Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI, John raises money to prevent his brother Richard from being ransomed. That's right, those heavy taxes by Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham are meant to make sure that King Richard DOESN'T return. Only those barons that were faithful raised money on behalf of their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Between both of these taxes, even the Church coffers were not spared. And following Richard's death, John is crowned king.

John fights against his nephew Arthur, and later captures him, imprisons him, and accidentally has him killed by a botched castration (to prevent any pesky heirs, of course). He at least grants a slight amount of dignity to his rebellious niece, Eleanor, and locks her up for the rest of her life.

John tried to control the Church in England by manipulating the selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and then rejected the Pope's choice for the episcopacy, which forced Innocent III to declare a lengthy Interdict upon England. Later, John is even excommunicated for his refusal.

Now, taxes were out of hand, and likely were driving the peasants and lesser nobles into destitution. Even so, taxes were not the only problem. With that said, would you join the Merry Men? At what point?

Bonus Question: Who's the better Robin Hood, Errol Flynn or Cary Elwes? Why?

[dairygirl4u2c]

and it doesn't seem necessarily sound that the only way you can physically rebel against a taxing government is to form a new government, like the no taxation without representation stuff and the american revolution.

[missionarybelle]

i love Robin Hood.

he's my hero.

we have to follow the laws of the land unless they are unjust, held by unjust people etc.