Lonewolf Diaries: Robin Hood, Capitalist Hero!
by Steven CrowderThe whole “Robin Hood theory” argument has been used by radical leftists (most commonly referred to as “college professors”) for decades across our great country. “Steal from the rich and give to the poor” is the rhetoric they’ll always undoubtedly regurgitate. There’s only one problem… It’s wrong. Dead wrong.
Every time I hear some dumb college know-it-all or stupid self-righteous celebrity use the story of Robin Hood as an argument for socialism, I want to punch them right in their perfectly zoom-whitened teeth. The truth, is that Robin Hood was the quintessential ANTI-Government revolutionary. He’d have more in common with our Founding Fathers or Ronald Reagan than the likes of Stalin, Marx, or Sean Penn.
See the one point that liberals miss when they read the story of Robin Hood was that the man never stole from “the rich.” Leftists like to vilify the wealthy, but the tale of Robin Hood vilifies a corrupt government. Robin Hood was stealing from an oppressive monarchy/administration and giving the wealth back to its rightful owners. He was essentially re-distributing wealth by removing it from the initial re-distributors. Confused? Let’s break down the story of Robin Hood for a second:
- Members of the monarchy are born into positions of power without having been elected.
- Peasants are born into a life of poverty; all of their acquisitions are taken from them by aforementioned monarchy.
- Robin Hood sees the injustice in hard-workers living in squalor while corrupt government officials “be livin’ likes pimps” (this is a quote from the original text, of course).
- Robin Hood says “enough” and takes on the government.
- Government loses control in an elaborate sword-fight (Errol Flynn wears tights).
- The people take back what they’d rightfully earned in the first place.
Hmmm… I’m still not seeing this as any sort of socialist crusade. Where in the story does Mr. Hood steal from small business owners or entrepreneurs? If there’s a sub-plot where Robin Hood professes the necessity of “equal outcomes,” I haven’t read it. Perhaps it’s my mere fourth-grade reading equivalency getting the best of me, but nowhere in the book do I see the Prince of Thieves even SUGGEST any sort of higher or additional taxes.
So again, I’d have to ask: Why do liberals so often use Robin Hood as a Marxist parable? Have they not read the story, or have they only watched the Disney version?
Come to think of it, I thought it was weird when Sean Penn started quoting “Robin Hood the Fox.”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
311 Comments
Bless you for getting this right. I've been telling brain-dead lefties this for years.
Yet ANOTHER example of the libtards using one of our stories/traits/beliefs and successfully bastardizing it for their own use. I'm getting sick of it. I just wanna poke 'em in the collective eye!!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Michael Chavez and DNC DUDES, Mr. Pink. Mr. Pink said: Lonewolf Diaries: Robin Hood, Capitalist Hero! http://tinyurl.com/yav4urb [...]
Dumb college know-it-all? Sounding a little defencive there Steven. I'm guessing you couldn't hack higher education.
This is hust great Steven…..
Hey one more point. Robin Hood is supposedly supporting the good King Richard the Lionheart over the usurper Prince John. What is King Richard doing? Fighting for King and Crown in the middle east while his brother stays in England probably decrying him and plotting to take over. So Robin Hood is evidently a pro military neocon Hawk as well. Seems that inconvenient truth gets glossed over as well.
Let's see hates tax collectors, doesn't like oligarchial controlling bureaucrats, thinks the people are taxed to much, willing to support his country when attacked….. Yep Robin was a Marxist Hippie all right.
Steven, your explanation makes perfect sense to advocates of capitalism and liberty. But to indoctrinated socialmists, "property is theft." In their minds, all great fortunes involve a great crime – by definition. In their minds, the government having money is okay because they use it "for good reasons." Bill Gates or any other entreprenuer or businessperson having money is NOT okay because they STOLE it.
This point of view makes no sense unless you begin with the premise that "property is theft." To a socialist, government CANNOT steal because government funds are not PERSONAL property. Businesspeople ALWAYS steal because they seek profit for personal gain.
This is what I would have said at age seventeen – I was a committed socialist at that age (and of course, I knew everything). Sadly, many people never evolve beyond that stage.
Oops, make that "defensive".
Funny, I've never heard that one used by lefties before.
BTW, BBC America's Robin Hood ended for good last week. So sad.
Take some time to re-watch the Disney version of Robin Hood. I just recently watched again as a grown man, and was amazed at how politically sharp the movie was. That movie and the soundtrack could never be made in today's hollywood, and I'm buying the DVD to show my kids when they're old enough to appreciate it.
Actually the Disney version shows Hood take from th e Prince and give to the over taxed citizenry. Am I wrong?
If not than the Disney version gets it right.
The thing I liked best about Robin Hood was that he distributed the death factor to the re- distributing oppressor's of The People with a Bodkin Goose Quill shaft in the throat. I like that…It's the romantic in me.
He was taking from the tax collectors and giving it back to the tax payers, simple, but the spin has sounded so much better for all those years to make the case for communism/socialism/collectivism/whateverism is more progressive friendly at the moment. Sooner or later the truth spreads, I just hope it's sooner-don't give up!
You got it right.
To be fair, the only time I've heard Robin Hood equated to socialism/Marxism was by Ayn Rand. She also misinterpreted the legend and said, "Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive."
Liberals will never understand what you wrote. It's almost like you're typing too fast for them
"Why do liberals so often use Robin Hood as a Marxist parable?"
The same reason they continually bleet around this time of year that Jesus, Mary and Joseph were homeless, it's all done to push their advocacy for statism and big government.
Look – it's that guy who thinks John Lennon getting shot dead is funny! What a clever young chap.
Robin Hood lost his cool factor when they cast Russell Crowe as him.
Didn't Monty Python do a skit about you? Something along the lines of:
Troll troll troll troll. Lovely troll! Wonderful troll! Troll tro-o-o-o-o-oll troll tro-o-o-o-o-ll. Lovely troll! Lovely troll! Lovely troll! Lovely troll! Lovely troll! Troll troll troll troll!
Interesting perspective! I'd never thought of it that way. I grew up Conservative, so explaining the Marxist thought process is difficult for me. Thanks for that!
Errol Flynn? The real Robin Hood was in Mel Brooks Manga Opus… ROBIN HOOD- MEN IN TIGHTS!!!!!!!!
If property is theft then the word theft has no meaning. Theft requires taking someone else's property, so if there is no property there can be no taking of that property and therefore no theft. "Property is theft" translates to "property is the taking of property that belongs to someone else." Right. Do Marxists have some way to explain this contradiction, or do they just completely fail at logical thinking?
Looks like the troll figured out how to get back on to BH. I wonder if this troll realizes he's giving cockroaches a bad name?
One of my favorite quotes is from Draco in "Dragonheart":
"When you squeeze the nobility, the peasants feel the pinch!"
Robin Hood robbed the tax collectors, but then the tax collectors just raised the taxes and the poor got even poorer. If he was a true capitalist, he would've opened an H & R Block in Sherwood Forest and made a fortune setting people up with some tax shelters. Then he could've donated his own profits to the poor.
Furthermore, when Robin Hood gave the tax money back to the taxpayers, did he give everyone back what they paid in, or did he redistribute it amongst those he saw as the neediest (minus a small fee to keep the Merry Men stocked with liqour)? The Sheriff of Nottingham paid taxes. Did he get a tax rebate? I don't think so. That means Robin was practicing Obama-style wealth redistribution.
As I said on the Russell Crowe Robin Hood thread, the Disney version, as others have noted, is a downlight merciless drubbing of overtaxation and corrupt government. The over-taxing sheriff of Nottingham and King John are really villains. The Sheriff takes money from the poor box at church (for "Poor King John") and clamps a manacle around the friar's neck when he protests and fights back. He takes money from a kid who got a coin from the family who scrimped and saved to give him something for his birthday. The Sheriff steals from a blind man (really Robin Hood in disguise) and puts it in his tax bag. King John plots to hang the friar so he can capture Robin Hood. It's actually pretty harrowing depiction of the evils that power in the wrong hands can do.
When Robin Hood and Little John break all the poor people out of jail (thrown in jail because they couldn't pay their taxes) and give them the gold they stole from King John they call it a "tax rebate."
Go watch the Disney Robin Hood. It's great. My three year old loves it.
People in glass houses should not throw books.
I thought Robin Hood was stealing bloody loopins!!??
ahhh….I'll take that last one, Alex for $500.00
Karl Marx was upset that the Industrial Revolution was allowing peasants to not be peasants anymore because they had the option of living off the wages they earned for their labor. The mass of cheaper products that industry supplied was damaging to the craftsmen who made products by hand and they were losing money. Marx wanted to get rid of the middle-class capitalists and return to the status-quo. He didn't believe in getting rid of private property, just ridding the borgeuois of theirs. At least that my interpretation of the Communist Manifesto, which is readily available at anyone's favorite search engine. But under Communism, all private property was/is confiscated by the State, leaving the leaders to own everything. Marx grudgingly understood (and didn't want to believe) that liberty and rights are associated with property, especially land.
Excellent!
You know Steven, you’re messing up the lefts narrative. What do you expect them to actually read the story. They’re simply to busy screwing America to be bothered with facts, and some centuries old tale.
Hey, Joe you seem to be off your game tonight. You forgot to mention either John Wayne or John Nolte.
From the perspective of my Ivy League graduate degree, I'd say Steven called it about right. Homo collegiomoronicus is a very common species, perhaps the dominant one.
In the throat a broadhead would be a better choice- much more tissue damage. Bodkins are for punching holes in armor.
You're welcome. When I was a teenager (mid 70's) I discovered all the leftist tomes in the public library and became the biggest Kiddie Commie you ever saw. I refused to stand for the Pledge, and I was enraged when the teacher ignored me (I wanted to be hauled to the office, where I could stick it to The Man and rant about "what this country did to the Vietnamese people").
Leftist beliefs are far scarier than most conservatives realize. There's a specific rationale as to why true socialists loathe organized religion. To attain true socialist paradise, The State MUST be the only authority on what is right and wrong – the ONLY authority. The State (the the leftists who control it) must be worshiped AS gods. There is no room for the real God.
That would be Dennis Moore.
"Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land.
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Lupins in his hand.
He steals from the rich
And gives to the poor.
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore."
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?autoco...
(My Robin Hood Toon)
What a bunch of sick twisted capitalists… JK
NEVER GIVE IN, CROWDER!!
Well she was right if you take the incorrect version Steven is talking about, she was a screenwriter in Hollywood for a number of years remember. Plus as a Russian immigrant to the US she might not have been familiar enough with the story and was only thinking about the "Steal from the rich and give to the poor" thing. I like Ayn Rand but she wasn't perfect.
Another hit, Steven!
You are so right, and thanks to you, you have once again opened my mind. I never heard Robin Hood told the way you did. I always heard him made out to be the bad guy. You raise excellent points and make me laugh at the leftists. Poor (ha!) dudes, can't defend anything, can they? (Global warming, change and hope, Obama's birth certificiate..etc)
Interesting
Lol……Very good Sir a broadhead…it is.
Commenter RobertB makes a decent point up above. I'd actually go farther than Steven and point out that what justifies Robin Hood's actions (and cuts against the Marxist narrative) is that he acts to uphold the contractual agreement between King and Subjects. The point that Robin Hood was fighting for the Legitimate King Richard is under-emphasized. The Evil Prince John was a usurper to the throne in Richard's absence. So as Steven points out, Robin Hood has more in common with our Founding Fathers, someone who fights against an illegitimate government, and in a sense, "Taxation Without Representation."
We shouldn't simplify the Middle Ages as an era of cliche Nobles ruling pitilessly over unwilling serfs. Our modern right of Consent of the Governed is actually predated (very crudely) in the Medieval agreement between Noble Lord, and servant (whether it's another knight or a poor farmer). With little or no central government like we see today, law and order was maintained by Nobles agreeing to protect their subjects in return for fealty and payment (usually in kind rather than coin actually). That's what Feudalism really is. While it's pretty obvious that such a system can be abused very easily, I hope it's also clear how that can lead to Locke's formation centuries later of the Social Contract and Jefferson's Consent of the Governed: "I give you service/payment/liberty in return for protection and order in my life."
Prince John, as a usurper, breaks his feudal contract over his subjects, thereby forfeiting his right to their payments (i.e. taxes). As a result, Robin Hood is doing his moral duty to restore the illicitly obtained property to their rightful owners (and that he can't do so completely fairly as RobertB points out, should not diminish this point).
So Robin Hood is even better than a Capitalist. He's upholding legitimate rule/law/order, contractual governance (note that the Magna Carta was signed in 1204 to force the same King John II to recognize the authority of his nobles), and most importantly, private property. Everything the Marxist would detest.
Steven knows his stuff – Here's how the peace sign got started…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJY-fBXCncw&fe...
haha, robin hood the fox
Good post.
Very much in the same spirit of my point about John Galt – Strike Organizer.
Oodalalee!
Some conservative is rewriting the Bible because it has a "liberal bias"…sounds like Crowder is doing the same here. Just another Hollywood wannabe who has become a right wing pundit as a default to compensate for a mediocre comedy career. Perhaps he should hook up with Kirk Cameron and do a reality TV show with him.
Why must you insult cockroaches this way?
is (greed) getting it right?
who cares about liberalism, It's the real people who end up at the noose. No matter what name you give them.(WORKERS)? Remember them?
We could use a Richard the Lionheart in Afghanistan right about now. Remember, he's the guy who beat Saladin's army of over seven thousand men with fifty-four knights and about a thousand Genoese crossbowmen.
Saladin was so impressed at one point he actually gave Richard one of his horses when he got it shot out from under him and continued to fight.
What? really? you should write a new theory of times and acknowledgement to evolution.
In Oregon, I just left an email to Sam Adams asking "should he , or not', investigate some fortune 500 executive's lucrative incomes disregarding the downfall of the economic struggle thousands of new uprising small business operators? this can be an example of how the big dogs keep in control and manipulate their capitalism $.???
Wow, that is a pretty pathetic troll attempt.
Geez, this is even lamer than the troll a few comments back.
What has happened to our trolls? They are really mailing it in these days.
When I was 17 I deciced to skip a class and go to another friends class that was having a Christmas party. Some how I got in to a conversation with one of the hottest girls in school. She was pretty, stright A's, and sweet to the point that just cared so gosh darn much about everything in the world.
I don't know how it came up but she started to whimper about things like nuclear war, global warming, and the homeless ( this was during the Reagan years ). I finally got fed up with it (And why not, her boy friend was going to the Air Force Academy so I didn't have a chance. As pretty as her ass was it woundn't do me any good to kiss it. ) I finally just said "a nuclear war would solve the homeless problem and nuclear winter would cancel out the warming". She looked at me in horror, the government teacher laughed, and I went back to eating a bland sugar cookie and felt oddly content.
Of course it was Dennis Moore. LOL!! Thanks I knew someone would get my Python reference,
You are reason 9,456 why I despise the left.
Not Over.
Steve's the one doing the name calling.
Ah jeez Vainamoinen, I fogot this site is for people who think alike to tell each other how right they are for thinking alike.
If Robin Hood really lived, he fought for the usurped King Richard, against his brother, Prince John.
Robin Hood defended not only the practice of monarchy, but the principle – he wanted a pious, godly monarch who would correct the imbalance of stability and authority created by John and his cronies. Robin Hood fought for the King.
Robin Hood was not a leveller, not an egalitarian and certainly not a republican (with capital OR small r).
They're probably screen writers. The stuff they write is about as lame and unimaginative as most of today's plays, movies and tv shows.
What? Really? And you should organize your thoughts and write them out more coherently.
1215
The story is pretty clear that Prince John abused his power by using unfair and illegal means to tax the peasants. He is also implicated in a scheme to prevent the rightful ruler from returning to power.
Robin starts out as a well intentioned do-gooder just looking to make a difference without any thoroughly laid out stategy. As the story progresses, Robin realizes that fighing the symptoms of repression are no substitute for ending it.
Sean Penn learned history so we would not have to!
We should be grateful.
But was he fighting for the monarchy per se, or was he fighting for legitimate government responsive to the inclinations of its subjects? Prince John was a usurper who abused his position. He also commited the most unforgivable sins in a ruler- the image of weakness borne of failure. And all but the heaviest handed rulers still had to account for the wellfare and disposition of their subjects. Prince (turned King) John found this out and was forced to sign the Magna Carta, and much later, King James II found the limits of power too.
But Robin definitely wasn't a crusading marxist as the left would portray him. Which was the point of the blog.
"Praise the Lord and pass the tax rebates!"
Which is why all those references to the "Creator" and "nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence — the Founding Fathers wanted to reject the whole idea of the supremacy of the State, and they did so by appealing to a higher authority.
Ah yes. The brilliant "I know you are, but what am I" gambit.
This is below average, even for you, Joe.
What? The flower Lupin?
I'm very sorry. I forgot how vulnerable you guys are to a little perspective outside of your comfort zone. Just turn on some Fox News, listen to a few hours of Rush, and keep saying "I'm good enough, smart enough and doggone it people like me."
Merry Christmas
I'm sure you thought it was the British spelling and was more sophisticated.
And yet, big name Hollywood actors make 20+ million a year, and MAYBE give one or two of it to some charity or another, and that's perfectly okay.
The "logic" makes my head hurt. Where do these people come from?
I'm sorry, what does greed have to do with anything? Steven wasn't advocating stealing money from the rich and hoarding it for yourself, he merely pointed out that Robin Hood was not a socialist.
Besides, you are aware that on average, people from red states give nearly twice as much of their personal income to charity as people from blue states, right? And that in yearly polls, it's been shown over and over and over again that conservatives of all kinds give nearly three times as much money to charity as liberals do? Who exactly are you calling greedy, here?
In her very popular books, Ayn Rand identifies a single enemy of her protagonists, by name:
It is Robin Hood, for he represents altruism. And altruism is antithesis of objectivism.
Now who "gives to the poor" more? Who fights for the poor?
Or by contrast: Who in our society wants to grow the ranks of the poor while shrinking the middle class?
You're also forgetting the Robin of Loxley had his land taken from him by the government at the time. It's kinda what set off his entire gambit.
There's no perspective here, just insults. Try a new tack.
And beyond declaring his belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, what exactly has Kirk Cameron done to deserve your ridicule and hatred? All I have seen him do is stand up for his beliefs. I'm not a member of the same religion he is, but I applaud him for doing something he believes in.
Cue Obama's call to "end the pursuit of middle-classness". Having a content middle class prevents the radical Left from inciting a revolutionary proletariat. Like religion, middle-classness is an "opiate of the masses", which keeps the majority of people tolerant of the status quo.
Stephen, you're missing the obvious here; they're saying more about America than the residents of Sherwood. The Leftists believe that our government is inherently corrupt and evil, and has been since it's founding. The more radical among them believe that everyone who succeeds (except Al Gore, of course), does so at the expense of the poor, and it's because of the way the government favors them (because we all know the government is racist, sexist, homophobic, blah blah blah…). So yes, Robin Hood took on the Government, but that's OK with Liberals because they see America as the same thing as the corrupt regimes of Britain during that time. Taking money away from someone who started out with nothing, then built up their own little empire because of Capitalism is justified to them because that person only succeeded because of the inherent unfairness of our system, so to Leftists there is no difference between the entrepreneur and the rich aristocrat who trampled on the poor hundreds of years ago in England.
You just see America differently than they do. It's like you're trying to communicate with a monkey using sign language (except that the monkey can actually be taught to have some understanding).
You are correct, sir. I apologize to all cockroaches.
It's hard to say which bits of the Robin Hood legend are original and which are later additions. I think our modern idea of Robin Hood comes from Howard Pyle's "Merrie England" version written in the 1880s. Pyle drew on a lot of the older, traditional Robin Hood tales and ballads, altering them so they fit together as a unified story. He also cleaned up a lot of the more bawdy ones, especially those that depicted Robin as a more dangerous, less charitable character. And since he was a late Victorian writing for children, he injected appropriate moral lessons into the narrative. The result was the clean-living, virtuous Robin Hood we know today.____My impression from what little I've read is that the older stories depict Robin Hood as more of a trickster than a moral crusader. He hung out in the woods, hunted, drank, gambled, robbed rich people, played pranks on all kinds of people rich and poor, and occasionally did good deeds. The point was that he was a rebel – he lived free and wild in the greenwood and never bowed to his social "betters," whether they were nobles or churchmen. This was escapist fare for people who lived under feudalism and the later English class system.
That's what I was going to say. In the Disney version Prince John raises taxes to an unbearable level and takes everything from the people for himself and his cronies. His tax collectors leave the people with nothing, even taking a kid's birthday present out of his hands. Robin Hood rebels against this. He doesn't take anything from private citizens, just takes back what was stolen from the people by the government.
Except that, in the older stories, Robin Hood also steals from wealthy merchants, who are invariably portrayed as being fat, greedy and worthless. Whereas Richard (who, historically, was even greedier than John, and spent all his time away from England, seeing it as nothing more than a tax base) is idolized.
Illiberals' and Regressives' spending all their time looking for a clue keeps them pretty busy. That and waiting for their lips to catch up to their eyes when they're pretending to read.
You don't sound very tolerant but then tolerance, for the Left, invariably means a lowering or abandonment of standards. Standards are haaaarrrdd!
OOH! OOH! I know this one! Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, and the military-industrial complex? 'Sorry, I mistook myself for one of the lobotomized (a/k/a Leftie).
Yeah it's a flower, in a Monty Python sketch.
Sorry, Costner ruined for me already
Yeah, I was para-phrasing the sketch! You were supposed to reply with something like – "Look, I happen to know that this is the Lupin Express!"
Parson: What do you mean, lupins?
Moore: Don't try to play for time.
Parson: I'm not, but… the flower lupin?
Moore: Yes, that's right.
Squire: Well we haven't got any lupins.
Girl: Honestly.
Moore: Look, my friends. I happen to know that this is the Lupin Express.
Squire: Damn!
Girl: Oh, here you are.
Moore: In a bunch, in a bunch!
True – in fact, John as regent (or whatever you call it) had to raise taxes to help fund Richard's crusading adventures AND to pay his ransom after he was captured by Leopold V. As usual, history is much more complicated than popular fiction.
Actually, fact check: Eleanor of Aquitaine and others helped raise Richard's ransom. John actually offered the Holy Roman Emperor (to whom Richard had been transferred by Leopold) 80,000 marks to keep Richard in captivity. So it's possible the common folk had to pay extra taxes both to free Richard AND to keep him in prison.
Sorry mate, it's been a while since I've seen it.
Yep, Robin Hood is the quintessential republican (not Rep Party) revolutionary fighting oppressive over taxing anti-human big government!
what would Oliver Cromwell do?
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&a...
And don't forget Dennis Moore's closing line: "Hmm…this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought."
You decide what's welcome on this site? Sorry, doesn't work that way. This isn't the first time Steven has put down higher learning like it's something to mock, and I'm saying this as someone who barely got out of high school. In hindsight I wish I'd applied myself a little more so I admire people who are willing to put out the effort.
John Wayne was a crappy actor.
Nah, I just get defense and defence mixed up sometimes.
And Steven hasn't answered back about his education so I imagine there isn't very much. He's not one the brightest lights writing on this site.
You must be logged in to post a comment.