Poll: Would you support a modern day Robin Hood?
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, most countries are still dictatorships, and most dictators tendd to be rich.MelasZepheos said:
Just last year, after the Libyian rebels raided Gaddafi's palace, they found shit like this [http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/08/24/7463208-rebel-fighters-ransack-gadhafis-daughters-house-in-tripoli-libya] golden mermaid couch with his daughter's face on it, several golden guns [http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/10/qaddafis-love-affair-golden-guns/43938/], and a golden fly-swatter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWRnv45L5ig
I would not. Being wealthy is not a crime, something that people without money really need to come to grips with.
Also, breaking the law makes you a criminal. If you are going to do something, do it the right way. I don't support vigilantism.
Also, breaking the law makes you a criminal. If you are going to do something, do it the right way. I don't support vigilantism.
No, because receiving stolen goods and profiting from the proceeds of crime, is also a crime.
In this day and age, most of the poor people Robin Hood gave his ill gotten gains to would be imprisoned or prosecuted themselves... or at the very least made to pay back the stolen money/goods that they can't afford (it would probably be garnished from their benefits).
Also Robin Hood wasn't so much of a thief, more a robber and armed robbery with the threat of violence or death shouldn't be supported or tolerated in our modern society, regardless of who the victims and beneficences are.
In this day and age, most of the poor people Robin Hood gave his ill gotten gains to would be imprisoned or prosecuted themselves... or at the very least made to pay back the stolen money/goods that they can't afford (it would probably be garnished from their benefits).
Also Robin Hood wasn't so much of a thief, more a robber and armed robbery with the threat of violence or death shouldn't be supported or tolerated in our modern society, regardless of who the victims and beneficences are.
Only if he uses this as his entrance theme song like whenever he walks into a room or something.
And for my serious answer - no I wouldn't support a modern robin hood.
And for my serious answer - no I wouldn't support a modern robin hood.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
I chose "it depends" because I'd only support a modern day Robin Hood if he was stealing from those who had unfairly obtained their money through corruption etc rather than simply being rich.
Robin Hood often robbed nobles who went through Sherwood in the modern stories and movies. So yeah, he kind of did just go around ripping people off who just happened to be rich.twistedmic said:
Also, they had charities back in the period Robin Hood is normally set, too. And "other support structures." That doesn't mean they are sufficient now, or were back then.
I chose it depends, because I'm still shocked that the bankers responsible for the financial meltdown haven't gone to jail. No one has to jail. I doubt however that there will be people altruistic enough.
If someone started stealing from those guys instead of the actually hard working, including the rich who came to their money without making everyone else around poor, then I wouldn't really shed a tear.
If someone started stealing from those guys instead of the actually hard working, including the rich who came to their money without making everyone else around poor, then I wouldn't really shed a tear.
Except, of course, the rich kind of are. They're the ones who are lobbying to change the government, cutting things important to us while also cutting taxes for the incredibly wealthy. Mitt Romney argues that he only paid what he was required to, but he actively fought to make that as low as possible, while actively attacking the poor and even middle class. Hell, Romney's especially good for this case, as he's the dude who came into town and shut down a major business, destroying the economic base in order to line his coffers with more gold.krazykidd said:
How is this really any different than the "rich" in the Robin Hood stories raising taxes on the poor to hoard money?
I'm not saying "rob them back" is automatically the solution, but the behaviour isn't all that different.
The problem with the Robin Hood situation is that if you support him, you give him the moral mandate to decide (1) who deserves to get robbed and (2) who deserves to get the stolen wealth. Sure, he might start out very fair and just in his redistribution practices, but with the power you grant him (through popular support), he'll end up using his moral high ground to rationalize his own misdeeds. We've seen that in history. People's champions who challenge dictatorships become dictators themselves.
We've even had a bunch of guys whose entire programme was taking from the rich and distributing fairly among the population. They ended up murdering more people than anybody else in history and plunging countries they ruled into poverty. (EDIT: Yes, they are still around - it just seems like the worst has passed, thus past tense.)
Sure, you might like the idea of someone taking money from the guys who use government bailouts to give themselves premiums, but remember what the end result tends to be.
We've even had a bunch of guys whose entire programme was taking from the rich and distributing fairly among the population. They ended up murdering more people than anybody else in history and plunging countries they ruled into poverty. (EDIT: Yes, they are still around - it just seems like the worst has passed, thus past tense.)
Sure, you might like the idea of someone taking money from the guys who use government bailouts to give themselves premiums, but remember what the end result tends to be.
No.
I mean, the whole point of robin hood, was that its action took places in middle ages, times where people could starve and the fat king (or any other figure of authority) would have 2 year worth of food in granaries. As long as people dont starve at streets i see no point for this to happen. Also, lets not forget why they were poor. Not because of laziness, but because they were taxed silly.
I am however all for punishing those who are responsible for current crisis, and forfeit of their ill gotten goods (im looking at you, guys with XXX-million bonuses....), and if you do that, why not give it back to the victims?
I mean, the whole point of robin hood, was that its action took places in middle ages, times where people could starve and the fat king (or any other figure of authority) would have 2 year worth of food in granaries. As long as people dont starve at streets i see no point for this to happen. Also, lets not forget why they were poor. Not because of laziness, but because they were taxed silly.
I am however all for punishing those who are responsible for current crisis, and forfeit of their ill gotten goods (im looking at you, guys with XXX-million bonuses....), and if you do that, why not give it back to the victims?
Yes, if it had to be a black and white answer. But I would rather support a modern day/real life Punisher.
If I remember correctly the thing about Robin Hood he was stealing from corrupt government that was overtaxing their people just for the sake of getting rich(er). So in a way he was balancing things out rather then just taking/giving the rich's excess cash. But since I like to think my government isn't stockpiling tax money just because they like their pockets fuller I wouldn't want a Robin Hood type around since then a lot more people gets screwed.