Talk:Robin Hood

From Conservapedia

Ed Poor, why did you delete my revision of this page, was there something wrong with it, and if so, what exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Graham (talk)

Not a socialist at all

The question above by Graham segues nicely into my own thoughts. Here is Graham's revision:

Robin was a heartless socialist, taking the wealth of the rich and redistributing it among the lazy poor. He also had scant regard for law and order, constantly undermining the statutes and the common law system prevalent under Medieval England.

I've long thought that the phrase "stole from the rich to give to the poor" was inaccurate. I'd say that he stole from the tax collectors to give back to the tax payers. Or perhaps that he stole back from those who stole in the first place, then he returned the stolen goods to the victims. In the modern telling, there were wealthy people from whom Robin Hood did not steal. Those wealthy people had earned their wealth and were entitled to it. But some wealthy people, e.g Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, used their power to tax, i.e. to steal, from hard working peasants who were unable to protect themselves. Sbowers3 10:12, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Robin Hood is a perfect story of abuse of government upon the lowly. Robin took back the taxes collected from that government and gave it all back to the people to whom it rightfully belonged. The more one reads the stories or views the Errol Flynn picture, the less and less a Democratic theme it is. Karajou 14:22, 29 September 2007 (EDT)