Maid Marian may have found him dreamy; but, is the story of Robin Hood one that makes sense today in the world of big government and, as some might say, the ubiquitous nanny state? Certainly, the need continues. Without regard to how much we collectively produce as a society, some of us will have more than others. Even in the most altruistic communist or utopian examples, certain ones stand above his or her peers. While most thinking folks can agree with this simple assessment, the cooperation ends there. Many believe with great passion that those in our midst who have excelled are to be rewarded for their industrious nature, superior intellect, and use of given talents and resources. Others, in describing the same set, would levy equally fervent charges of robber-baronism. They might denounce those at the top of hierarchy of, at best, using undue force or position to elevate themselves over their peers, or, at worst, label them criminals to the end of ultimate persecution and prosecution.
Like most matters, the answer is unlikely found at the fringes of either argument. Some success is attributed to hard work and some to luck or other advantage. But back to our friend and his merry band, is it ever right to steal from or force disadvantage upon those about whom we have decided have taken unfair advantage? Robin Hood redistributed enough of the King’s money that various legitimate projects must have been affected. The French mobs beheaded enough aristocrats that they must have ensnared an innocent or two. Even convicted tax-dodger Wesley Snipes failed to make a case that our own government takes just too much. To certain among us, it is an alluring notion to knock down the rich and powerful. But when we take the power, does our solution become the problem?
Like most matters, the answer is unlikely found at the fringes of either argument. Some success is attributed to hard work and some to luck or other advantage. But back to our friend and his merry band, is it ever right to steal from or force disadvantage upon those about whom we have decided have taken unfair advantage? Robin Hood redistributed enough of the King’s money that various legitimate projects must have been affected. The French mobs beheaded enough aristocrats that they must have ensnared an innocent or two. Even convicted tax-dodger Wesley Snipes failed to make a case that our own government takes just too much. To certain among us, it is an alluring notion to knock down the rich and powerful. But when we take the power, does our solution become the problem?
This column was published on March 20, 2012 in the Current in Carmel, Current in Westfield and Current in Noblesville - http://youarecurrent.com/
Honestly, did Robin Hood (or most like him & his crew) really think through the consequences of their actions? Charitable story. What is the implications to productivity? But, how does one with so much "loot" spread the wealth?
ReplyDeletePerhaps, the towns people chose to reduce production not only due to the usurp nature of the tax collection but, even, less motivated by gifts from Robin Hood. Planted less acres due to pressure from both the government and bandits?
Think for a moment as to the true whether Robin Hood and his Merry men thought it through. Did the redistribution of wealth (booty) by Robin Hood & his merry men create another non-progressive equity situation? Who benefited the most amongst the villagers or villages? So, the pheasants (downtrodden) leave upon receiving "just enough" ... then left to make room for others? If so, then very altruistic crowd. We know human nature that this most likely would not be the case.
But, if they didn't then those closest to the point of redistribution benefited greater than those further from the inner concentric circle? Thus, creating another situation of "have & have nots"? Hmmm, does this give those on the outer rim of the concentric circle the right to rob the inner circle beneficiaries? The poor stealing from the poorer? Check out a version of this in some US urban centers or unrecorded Rural hinterland locals.
Unless things happen to be returned to the rightful "original" pre-Nottingham taxation then Robin Hood only created another issue. Redistribution of the hijacked wealth continues the cycle of theft.
The only end is to allow the people to hit their level of frustration to lash back at any unGodly and lack of judicious rulers. When it hurts bad enough even the meek and quiet gain a voice to do heroic things. The can be petition for change, removal of lower level peons, or ... outright over though.
Robin Hood created the first example of an "ad-hoc" welfare dependent society. Some worked their fields. Others, prayed for Robin Hood to return without trying to solve their own situation either individually or collectively find the answer.
So, Robin's methods actually did the following:
1) Impacted village farm productivity,
2) Cause additional spread of wealth issues,3) Mother "necessity"! Removing of obstacles reduce the incentive to find more efficient inventions or methods of production.
4) Slowed logical methods to remove a tyrant or a government.
5) Over taxed Serfs become indebted to a overzealous bandit.
In the end, once the people reach saturation of unfairness then push for change. Robin Hood's solution was only a temporary fix. A band-aid. The people could remove the Sharif of Nottingham. Declare independence or loyalty to the throne.
Too much uncoordinated help dulls the senses.
On my own opinion, I think that everyone has their own belief and idea about Robin Hood. I think that Robin Hood wants to share what is supposed to be for others. I know that many people like this kind of attributes that Robin Hood possess.
ReplyDelete