+- School Survival Forums (http://forums.school-survival.net)
+-- Forum: The Lounge (/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+--- Forum: General Talk (/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+---- Forum: Philosophy, Politics & History (/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+---- Thread: robin hood (not a joke) (/showthread.php?tid=16219)
robin hood (not a joke) - cryptevah72 - 12-08-2007 03:34 AM
ok, this isnt some lame robinhood story in the wrong thread, its a philisophical (i think) question
robin hood stole frmo the rich, and gave to the poor, your thoughts? (really think before answering, i find myself always changing opinions about it, but for the most part i think im sure)
no simple, "was right" or "was wrong" answers, im seriously curious
- Freak - 12-08-2007 06:02 AM
This a fucking easy one.
That's why we still even have fucking poverty, because there's no distribution of wealth.
So if people that have the option to wipe their ass with 100 dollar bills, would SHARE, we wouldn't have poverty. (Global distribution of wealth)
It all comes down to greediness.
Ofcourse even if people with 30/40k wages could do SOMETHING.
So I see nothing wrong with someone making them give.
- thewake - 12-08-2007 08:25 AM
He stole from the King who stole from them(taxes) in the first place.
I have nothing against rich people, it's their money. it's not like life matters a lot anyway. We all die and the money is useless.
- Alucard483 - 12-08-2007 12:48 PM
This is one of those grey areas for me. I have no real thing against stealing from stores and shit like that, however I do have a thing agaist stealing from other people, because they well, worked for it. However in the case of Robin Hood because he stole taxes i have no real problem
- Ahab - 12-08-2007 01:38 PM
Distribution of wealth is a crock of shit which isn't compatible with proper anarchy. It's about as smart as an idea as the Federal Reserve is.
If anarchy will ever work, its because people are doing it voluntarily. Private charity would pay for the poor far easier than a collective agreement/axiom/whatever, and it regulates itself. There will never be a truly anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-communist society, its gonna be split in the middle, and the best way to do this is through individualism in personal rights AND the economy, something wealth distribution isnt good for.
Anyways, Robin hood itself doesnt work well if you're just giving to corrupt poor who will waste the money. Most poor people aren't any better than rich people, they just dont have the money (read: incentive) to be a corrupt dick. This goes back to the idea of the federal reserve: people should be able to print or produce their own money and try to compete with it in the market.
I can understand some distribution as an individualist thing, which does differ from state socialism in that anarchism tends to be more individualist in the distribution of wealth category, but a full implementation of distribution of wealth or taking from the rich to give to the poor isnt a good idea imo.
- Happy Camper - 12-08-2007 06:05 PM
Captain Ahab Wrote:Distribution of wealth is a crock of shit which isn't compatible with proper anarchy. It's about as smart as an idea as the Federal Reserve is.
If anarchy will ever work, its because people are doing it voluntarily. Private charity would pay for the poor far easier than a collective agreement/axiom/whatever, and it regulates itself. There will never be a truly anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-communist society, its gonna be split in the middle, and the best way to do this is through individualism in personal rights AND the economy, something wealth distribution isnt good for.
Anyways, Robin hood itself doesnt work well if you're just giving to corrupt poor who will waste the money. Most poor people aren't any better than rich people, they just dont have the money (read: incentive) to be a corrupt dick. This goes back to the idea of the federal reserve: people should be able to print or produce their own money and try to compete with it in the market.
I can understand some distribution as an individualist thing, which does differ from state socialism in that anarchism tends to be more individualist in the distribution of wealth category, but a full implementation of distribution of wealth or taking from the rich to give to the poor isnt a good idea imo.
I'm a little tipsy right now and I tend to go back on forth on this issue from time to time...but...generally my opinion is...
^ WIN.
Most people find this ridiculous because I do believe in universal healthcare but I just draw a line somewhere in there.
- SoulRiser - 12-09-2007 03:56 AM
I always liked Robin Hood and the idea of taking from greedy people and giving to poor people. But I can't say I would actually steal from anyone unless it was really an emergency, and even then I'd probably try to pay them back later or something.
But I'd probably help other people do it, as long as they were stealing from either:
the government
large corporations
rich people who were being blatantly asshole-ish and greedy about it
- thewake - 12-09-2007 04:19 AM
Quote:the governmentIt's not stealing from them, it's compensation.
Quote:large corporationsMaybe, they have employees that get their life's earnings there though. And it's not like they're doing anything immoral. They are just good at the art of making a shit load of money.
Quote:rich people who were being blatantly asshole-ish and greedy about itThey may be asshole-ish and greedy, but stealing is still stealing.
- happy fool called Nigel - 12-09-2007 04:29 AM
I'd have to say.... Back then it was okay to do. The rich people in those times were mainly rich because they were in positions of power, and they stole from people. Poor people. So in that case, they were only taking back what what theirs.
By the way, in the actual book, he doesn't actually do that. He's not some working class hero like someone makes him out to be. He's practically an anarchist.
- happy fool called Nigel - 12-09-2007 04:33 AM
It's not that realistic, but if you want a good look on the stealing from the rich giving to the poor side of the Robin Hood legend, watch The Adventures of Robin Hood.
- Albatross - 12-09-2007 09:12 AM
Robin Hood = Communist vigilante
- Propaganda Kid - 12-09-2007 04:54 PM
It's right because the poor need money more than the rich. If you're starving in a gutter somewhere, you need something to eat more than the kid who just bought out the candy shop. A single Snickers bar is worth more to you because your need is greater, and if it was me, I would take it in a second and feel good thinking about it afterward.
- cryptevah72 - 12-10-2007 11:08 AM
yeah, i agree, with robin hood being a more good than bad thing, but it gets confusing, cuz then ur saying that "stealing" is ok in certain situations, in which case gives the idea that ther are exeptions, and people can use it as an excuse, and ther has to be a fine line i guess, but then in some cases ther shudnt....ugh, im confusing myself, i gtg, gnight
- thoughtmaker - 12-10-2007 03:07 PM
not only do i agree with robin on this one, i wish i was a modern day robin hood. that would be really cool.
the rich don't money that's why they're rich. the poor need money and starve. i'd steal to give to the poor in a heartbeat (if i knew i could get away with it
)
- The Wadekarl - 12-11-2007 01:19 PM
Maxwell Wrote:Robin Hood = Communist vigilante
- Araris - 01-05-2008 03:36 AM
I have to say, normally, I would agree with Robin Hood.
But as the points been brought up, the circumstances were different. I think that at the time, that would have been acceptable, but in current society, there's no way to justify it.
Yes, people are starving, but I'm sorry to say this but, why do they deserve the money? Honestly, the rich at the very least had a rich ancestor. That's assuming they didn't work for the money themselves. Because they may have acquired the money illegally, taking it back doesn't make you any better.
It's a nice idea that everyone just shares their money, but when was the last time you emptied your pockets to a homeless person? Communism, I'm sorry to say, doesn't work. Greed will exist in all systems, and in that one, it affects it too much. Look at Russia. One very small amount of people had all the money, while the rest of the population had squat. ((that exists in america, yes, but to nowhere near the same extent))
So yes, if taking the money from the rich and giving it to the poor would help the world, I'd support it. But because the poor has done nothing to deserve the money, than I can't.
That doesn't, however, mean that I don't support that HUMAN RIGHT for national health care.
Money would be a convenience that the poor, whatever predicaments they've experienced, don't deserve.
- SoulRiser - 01-05-2008 05:28 AM
They deserve to eat, right? They deserve clothes and blankets so they don't freeze, right? The money isn't really the point, it's what the money can provide that matters.
- Araris - 01-05-2008 07:49 AM
And there are shelters that offer both of those things.
I'm saying, stealing the MONEY from the rich and giving it to the poor is immoral because the poor's done nothing to deserve it.
But, they have the human right to survive, but I don't feel the economy is the cause of there starvation. Most homeless people, call this a generalization if you must, but they are mentally unstable. This doesn't mean they have the right to die, but most of them choose not to go to the shelters.
- SoulRiser - 01-05-2008 08:20 AM
Maybe they're mentally unstable because this world is cruel. Maybe they don't want to go to the shelters because they feel degraded there. Just some things I've read, I can't say for sure how true it is though.
- Jackass McAwesome - 01-05-2008 09:08 AM
Some people who do want to work for money, have wanted to work for money, but can't work for money because of... you know, school, alcohol and drug abuse, and all that jazz. Then there's the people that can't work for money because if they do, there's the chance that their family or friends who do the abuse or are really young might get hurt or killed. These are the same people that usually resort to crime. And it's not like they want to, and it's usually a moral crusher/throater.
- thoughtmaker - 01-06-2008 05:59 AM
in the system we have, it says that if you don´t sell your time, you don´t get to live. i don´t agree with that. i think every person should have the basic needs for survival. i´d give money to someone who needed it, but i might need it myself considered i have no idea what i´m going to do in the future (i might be homeless myself soon)
- Guest - 01-06-2008 06:11 AM
hmm but what about welfare?
- Jackass McAwesome - 01-06-2008 06:42 AM
Split view, here we go:
Welfare can be good for the families that've actually tried to get a job, and a family reduced to the women selling themselves to the night just to eat is rather saddening to some. Those people need welfare, and they need it bad. But, there's those people who rely on it as the government giving them money and are the ones you see most often with welfare. They don't use the money for what it was given. These people usually use it for drugs, and let their family suffer while the Mom/Dad/etc. get drunk off their asses.
- Guest - 01-06-2008 07:24 AM
Basically what I was thinking...
- thoughtmaker - 01-10-2008 02:49 AM
those people are the people that need the most help and yet we just say, ´oh fuck em´ and go on with buying shit we don´t need. people make mistakes, but if you make a mistake in today´s world you can starve in the street.
all i´m saying is that there shouldn´t be people who live in mansions (while owning five others) while people are starving.
- Olexa - 02-02-2008 04:29 PM
Freak Wrote:This a fucking easy one.Quite the opposite is true. Poverty exists precisely because of wealth redistribution. (redistribution, not distribution. Distribution of wealth is nonsense. Wealth initially is earned not distributed.)
That's why we still even have fucking poverty, because there's no distribution of wealth.
So if people that have the option to wipe their ass with 100 dollar bills, would SHARE, we wouldn't have poverty. (Global distribution of wealth)
And about this Robin Hood character… I don’t believe in this legend. It contradicts everything I know about logics, human nature, history, economics, sociology. Real Robin Hood ( if he ever existed) was like this:
Did he rob the rich? Yes. Because it is not profitable for a small gang to rob the poor ( but it is profitable for a big gang i.e. the government). I also doubt he robbed taxmen and other officials. It would be too dangerous, they were military professionals after all. Plus they didn’t nave much. Weapon, armours, horses. That’s all.
Rather, he robbed merchants. They were much less dangerous and they had a lot to grab. But medieval merchants were exploited, not exploiting class. I can’t see how it makes him a knight of justice.
Did he give to the poor? Yes. But not too much. Just enough to keep up his popularity among them and pay informants.
Shortly, he was a common Mafioso. Exactly like “bratva” ( =brothers, brethren) in my country. They rob the rich not the poor. But doing so they rob the poor indirectly. And yes, they have some respect and popularity among the poor. At least among the most envious, stupid and greedy of them.
Sorry for ruining somebody’s sweet dream.
Re: robin hood (not a joke) - Squittle - 09-13-2008 09:56 AM
I suppose it depends on the person. If they donates a million bucks to charity and were still rich as hell, is it really right to steal from them? Sure, I'd see it as fine if they were super rich and hoarding it all, but if they're already donating to charities and stuff, then why steal from them?