Robin Hood

[Lil Red]

was Robin Hood justified in his actions in holding up rich people with bow and arrow and giving the money he stole to the poor?

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_hood"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_hood[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

most likely not.
but it depends on teh situtation. like if the rich were hoarding the goods of the area, and the poor had no opportunity. or the rich were in some real way exploiting the poor.
but even then, it's probably the duty of the poor to redeem themselves. unless they had no means to, and only robin hood did.
and if he were justified it wouldn't be "stealing" as stealing implies taking something that's not yours.

but, ultimately, you can't just take things because you want to, cause you're poor and they're rich. if you don't have justifable reasons, which usually you wouldn't.

it's a very complicated question, not as simple as many would have you believe.

[hyperdulia again]

Stealing is wrong (see the decalogue). Amplifying the sin of stealing by introducing the threat of violence complicates the sin. His concern for the poor was laudable, the means used to aid them were sinful.

[hyperdulia again]

Stealing is wrong (see the decalogue). Amplifying the sin of stealing by introducing the threat of violence complicates the sin. His concern for the poor was laudable, the means used to aid them were sinful.

[dairygirl4u2c]

most likely not.
but it depends on teh situtation. like if the rich were hoarding the goods of the area, and the poor had no opportunity. or the rich were in some real way exploiting the poor.
but even then, it's probably the duty of the poor to redeem themselves. unless they had no means to, and only robin hood did.
and if he were justified it wouldn't be "stealing" as stealing implies taking something that's not yours.

but, ultimately, you can't just take things because you want to, cause you're poor and they're rich. if you don't have justifable reasons, which usually you wouldn't.

it's a very complicated question, not as simple as many would have you believe.

[jeffpugh]

Is redeem the right word, Dairy?

[jeffpugh]

As of this post, all poll options are at 2.

[kafka]

there isnt enough information on the story. Its a legend. Stealing is intrinsically evil. But if one is so poor he cannot afford food he may expropriate some from another who has more than enough.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='kafka' post='1435670' date='Dec 18 2007, 10:20 AM']there isnt enough information on the story. Its a legend. Stealing is intrinsically evil. But if one is so poor he cannot afford food he may expropriate some from another who has more than enough.[/quote]
yes, but by means of armed force?

[Aloysius]

just to make this interesting...

one must keep in mind that the money he was taking was money which was taken by unjust taxes. he was not stealing from the rightful owner and giving it to the not rightful owner, he was taking that which was stolen from the poor through taxation and giving it back to them.

note that the poor did not suddenly become wealthy, they simply received back what had been taken from them.

if a man steals something from you, and you go out and steal it back from him, you have not stolen.

the wealthy of England were stealing from the poor through taxes which were unjust, and because Robin Hood had the means to do so without causing too much chaos to society, he formed a just opposition to that government's tyrannical theft. I dare say he meets all the requirements indicated for justifying a revolt against an oppressive government by the Catechism. that he used the threat of violence is no matter, for the theft which was going on was indeed threatening the lives of the poor, driving them into extreme poverty such that their lives were threatened. And it is always justified to threaten deadly force if you are defending someone else whose life is being threatened.

now, there are a lot of taxes nowadays that I consider unjust, but I could not justify attempting to steal them back from the US treasury or from the companies that receive them through pork-barreling because I don't have the means to do so without causing more chaos, without causing a worse situation than that which exists with those taxes; and they are not as threatening to people's lives as the unjust taxes were in Robin Hood's time.

but if ever a well-regulated militia of Merry Men formed under the pretense of the Second Amendment with a clear and decisive plan for stealing back that which has been stolen from us through unjust taxation, I might just have to join up. But only if their plan is solid enough that it would not cause a worse problem than exists now.

And now that I have thoroughly violated the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S.B. 1959), I await the federal agents. just kidding... I hope. lol

[S][N]

Yes he was, and in the end...they were only brits...

[jeffpugh]

Well, Robin Hood had the backing of a learned Friar, so I'm sure Al has things right...

[Deb]

I voted yes but, it should probably have been a no, morally.
I like men in tights with bows and arrows though. Swords too. Love sword fights. Love those who fight for the poor and for justice. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


wow! I just noticed I am no longer a Lurker. Oh happy Day!

Edited December 19, 2007 by Deb

[elizabeth_jane]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1435832' date='Dec 18 2007, 06:05 PM']just to make this interesting...

one must keep in mind that the money he was taking was money which was taken by unjust taxes. he was not stealing from the rightful owner and giving it to the not rightful owner, he was taking that which was stolen from the poor through taxation and giving it back to them.

note that the poor did not suddenly become wealthy, they simply received back what had been taken from them.

if a man steals something from you, and you go out and steal it back from him, you have not stolen.

the wealthy of England were stealing from the poor through taxes which were unjust, and because Robin Hood had the means to do so without causing too much chaos to society, he formed a just opposition to that government's tyrannical theft. I dare say he meets all the requirements indicated for justifying a revolt against an oppressive government by the Catechism. that he used the threat of violence is no matter, for the theft which was going on was indeed threatening the lives of the poor, driving them into extreme poverty such that their lives were threatened. And it is always justified to threaten deadly force if you are defending someone else whose life is being threatened.[/quote]

I concur.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1435832' date='Dec 19 2007, 08:05 AM']And now that I have thoroughly violated the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S.B. 1959), I await the federal agents. just kidding... I hope. lol [/quote]
You know, I just overheard a SEAL Team discussing something called Operation:Kill Aloysius. I think they mentioned something called "prolonged waterboarding", I'm not sure....

[quote name='S][N' post='1435836' date='Dec 19 2007, 08:08 AM']
Yes he was, and in the end...they were only brits... [/quote]

[rkwright]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1435832' date='Dec 18 2007, 05:05 PM']just to make this interesting...

one must keep in mind that the money he was taking was money which was taken by unjust taxes. he was not stealing from the rightful owner and giving it to the not rightful owner, he was taking that which was stolen from the poor through taxation and giving it back to them.

note that the poor did not suddenly become wealthy, they simply received back what had been taken from them.

if a man steals something from you, and you go out and steal it back from him, you have not stolen.

the wealthy of England were stealing from the poor through taxes which were unjust, and because Robin Hood had the means to do so without causing too much chaos to society, he formed a just opposition to that government's tyrannical theft. I dare say he meets all the requirements indicated for justifying a revolt against an oppressive government by the Catechism. that he used the threat of violence is no matter, for the theft which was going on was indeed threatening the lives of the poor, driving them into extreme poverty such that their lives were threatened. And it is always justified to threaten deadly force if you are defending someone else whose life is being threatened.

now, there are a lot of taxes nowadays that I consider unjust, but I could not justify attempting to steal them back from the US treasury or from the companies that receive them through pork-barreling because I don't have the means to do so without causing more chaos, without causing a worse situation than that which exists with those taxes; and they are not as threatening to people's lives as the unjust taxes were in Robin Hood's time.

but if ever a well-regulated militia of Merry Men formed under the pretense of the Second Amendment with a clear and decisive plan for stealing back that which has been stolen from us through unjust taxation, I might just have to join up. But only if their plan is solid enough that it would not cause a worse problem than exists now.

And now that I have thoroughly violated the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S.B. 1959), I await the federal agents. just kidding... I hope. lol [/quote]

The legal system in both England and America would disagree with you. Taking back something that you believe is rightfully yours is a question for the courts to handle, not the stronger of the two people. Allowing people to retrieve what they believe is rightly theres whenever and however they feel like it would lead to absolute chaos.

Also I hav never heard of anyone justifying the use of deadly force against economic threats. There are better systems in place to ensure economic justice than using force.

Edited December 19, 2007 by rkwright

[Justin86]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1435947' date='Dec 19 2007, 01:32 PM']Also I hav never heard of anyone justifying the use of deadly force against economic threats. There are better systems in place to ensure economic justice than using force.[/quote]
The American Revoltion doesn't ring any bells? Really, we're not alone here.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1435954' date='Dec 18 2007, 10:45 PM']The American Revoltion doesn't ring any bells? Really, we're not alone here.[/quote]

1 - The American Revolution was a revolution by an entire nation. It was not one rouge man trying to take justice in his hands (or a mere band of men).
2- The American Revolution began out of protests that were peaceful (in the begining, and note the British fired first at the Boston Masacare). The legislative and judicial system were tried and failed to secure the rights of the people.

Simply there was never an economic threat to any single colonist that caused them to kill someone. No one walked in and since they couldn't buy a stamp walked out and shot someone. (Unless you're from Texas where you can apperently use deadly force if someone is taking your neighbors property)

In our system today, the Courts are more than capable of returning stolen goods to thier rightful owner.

As for Robin Hood; that was a different world where the injustice of the court might mitigate his stealing.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Robin Hood was a hero!! One of my biggest role models growing up actually. Another big role model was Captain Kirk.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one; but sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Plus sometimes you’ve got the break the prime directive for the sake of justice and all that. Robin Hood rocks!

Sometimes "duty" and "morality" become nothing more than a means by which tyranny and oppression subsist. Robin Hood had the cojones to do what needed to be done in the face of evil. Sometimes the concrete situation of humanity is more compelling than formalistic systems of right and wrong.

If Robin Hood was real I'm sure he saved a lot of lives by being man enough to stand up against an evil establishment.

[S][N]

LOL owned