The Robin Hood Philosophy

[(MoC)]

As I am bored like some others, I started thinking on what to do and remembered the old story of Robin Hood. Now, I am here asking InsanelyMac User Opinions about if it is right or wrong and others. Now, let me explain what the Robin Hood Philosophy actually IS.

 

Many of us know this tale from the author Roger Green about this heroic Robin Hood. He basically stole from the rich and gave to the poor while protecting others from a corrupt government system back in the times where the King was away and a cruel prince took over like a greedy piece of :censored2: , yada yada, etc.

 

 

My opinion is that stealing is wrong anyway you put it. The person that is rich most likely did something to better human kind and deserves his or her reward. The idea of this philosophy governing us would be just stupid and idiotic. IT would be uncontrollable. As for if politicians or officials reversed this, I believe some did. They steal from us (taxpayers) and they get profit from it instead of our taxes going to better the country and such.

 

So, people, lets hear some opinions!!!

[apowerr]

Uhh, I really don't understand this. I don't think anyone is going to support stealing from a certain group of people and only from that group of people. Also, I don't get what the point you're trying to make with the last question. What is the 'Robin Hood theory'? All Governments waste money. $1,000,000 can go really far unless it's in the hands of the government. Then it will pay for a few seconds of the Iraq War....

[SDRacer48]

Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand Theory"

 

The rich get rich by looking out for themselves, but the community as a whole benefits through the effect of the invisible hand (i.e. Jobs, Community Enrichment and Development, Charity, etc.)

 

Plus, stealing is wrong. That includes stealing from a thief (i.e. a thief stealing from a thief).

[Paranoid Marvin]

Stealing is the wrong word...

 

The rich should pay higher taxes to help the less fortunate.

 

It's fair and it's right, and it works good for this country, and even better for Norway, Sweeden and the other left wing countries in Europe (which by the way, are more developed - a good example of socialism)

[Special-K]

The rich should pay higher taxes than get tax breaks. And the government steals money from us like WHOA!. There's no way the 'Robin Hood' theory would work for this government. That's why they gave the rich tax cuts.

[Superhai]

Robin Hood story is good, but it is based in a setting with a cruel ruler and the aristocratic overclass which collected taxes mostly for their own use and their wars. At that time there were barely any things like a government organized welfare system. This from the time when the magna carta was to be drafted and laws were basically what the local ruler decided. This is hardly anywhere today. So the comparisons would not be right, although the "noble" idea is still an interesting guideline.

 

You can say stealing for profit, stealing for fun, but also stealing for survival and necessity. It is easy to say "you shall not steal". But if you are in a case where you can´t get food with your own resources for your children so they risk to die, and you go and steal some food from someone who clearly has too much. What is morally, ethically and legally right?

[(MoC)]

It is easy to say "you shall not steal". But if you are in a case where you can´t get food with your own resources for your children so they risk to die, and you go and steal some food from someone who clearly has too much. What is morally, ethically and legally right?

 

That is true, in those kinds of situations where its a matter of life and death it is understandable. Many people would say that life is better!

 

 

Stealing is the wrong word...

 

That's the whole point of this conversation. We need to know the "what if"s of stealing!

 

 

The rich should pay higher taxes to help the less fortunate. It's fair and it's right, and it works good for this country, and even better for Norway, Sweeden and the other left wing countries in Europe (which by the way, are more developed - a good example of socialism)

 

I strongly agree with that idea. Who has more should give a little more to those who have less!

[socal swimmer]

I disagree with welfare. It helps those who are too lazy to work for themselves.

 

However, I do agree with much higher taxes for the rich and lower/none for the poor. Here's why:

 

For someone that makes $32k/year, pretty much every cent goes to food/other necessities. Taking even a tiny bit of this as taxes is taking food out of their mouthes. For someone that makes $200k/year, much less goes to necessities, and more to luxuries. Taking this as taxes will reduce their luxuries, but will not take food from their mouthes.

 

I support "stealing" in the form of higher taxes for the rich. I support giving money to the poor in the form of children's health care, University scholarships, and making children's lives better in general. once they reach adulthood, it is their responsibility (barring major disorder), not the governments.

[3nigma]

The rich should pay higher taxes to help the less fortunate.

 

It's fair and it's right

Ha.

 

First, let me say that I agree that the rich should be taxed more than the poor. However, saying that doing that is "fair" is one of the most uneducated comments one could make. "Fair" means we are all taxed the same. Not some pay higher taxes than others. But life isn't "fair." Not everyone has as much as everyone else, and for some that is their own fault, but for others it can be hard to change. That's the same reason that the rich can be taxed more- 'cause life isn't fair. But don't convince yourself that taking things unfairly from those that have more in order to help those that have less is, by any stretch, "fair."

 

However, it's certainly the "right" thing to do. Which is why everyone believes in it.

 

Ironically, in the Old Testament, when God set up an elaborate social and economic governing system for the way to live, this is one of the principles he instituted. Those that have more in abundance would give to those who have less and are in need.

 

-3nigma

[Superhai]

It is fair to say that the fair meaning of the word fair is fairly unfairly.

 

Or rather the meaning is in the eye of the beholder.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Ha.

 

First, let me say that I agree that the rich should be taxed more than the poor. However, saying that doing that is "fair" is one of the most uneducated comments one could make. "Fair" means we are all taxed the same. Not some pay higher taxes than others. But life isn't "fair." Not everyone has as much as everyone else, and for some that is their own fault, but for others it can be hard to change. That's the same reason that the rich can be taxed more- 'cause life isn't fair. But don't convince yourself that taking things unfairly from those that have more in order to help those that have less is, by any stretch, "fair."

 

I disagree.

Only when everyone has the same amount of money is it 'fair'

 

Anything else leaves some more advantaged and many more disadvantaged

[3nigma]

Only when everyone has the same amount of money is it 'fair'

 

Anything else leaves some more advantaged and many more disadvantaged

I also agree with you here.

 

Ironically again, this is another one of the systems God set up in the social and economic system of the Old Testament. God didn't want people exploiting others, especially the poor, so he set it up where every X amount of years, all the land (i.e. wealth) was redistributed amongst the people equally. This prevented the poor from becoming poorer and the rich from becoming richer, especially at the expense of others.

 

God sets up a pretty dang good socio-economic order, if humanity lived by it.

 

-3nigma

[apowerr]

Only when everyone has the same amount of money is it 'fair'

Equal opportunity makes things fair, not everyone having an equal amount of money.

[Numberzz]

How the {censored} did 8 people vote for taking from the rich and giving to the poor as right? Rich people are already taxed too much. People who make over $200,000 already pay about 45% of their money to the government before all the other taxes.

I disagree.

Only when everyone has the same amount of money is it 'fair'

 

Anything else leaves some more advantaged and many more disadvantaged

If you feel that way, then turn Scotland into a communism. That is the most wrong statement I have heard regarding money.

[Proteo]

How the {censored} did 8 people vote for taking from the rich and giving to the poor as right?

 

We're 10 by now

 

C'mon Numberzz. You'll see, this is an internet forum. People is free to post their thoughts (as you are). I voted option 1 "yes" because this is just an internet forum, nothing is gonna change and nobody is going to do so just that because I voted yes in a stupid poll, calm down and don't lose the perpective of things.

 

Now, in a real life situation, that would lead any society to the barbarie, sooner or later, because poor people would become rich at some point thus would become the next victim

[Superhai]

How the {censored} did 8 people vote for taking from the rich and giving to the poor as right? Rich people are already taxed too much. People who make over $200,000 already pay about 45% of their money to the government before all the other taxes.

 

Another fairly unfairly statement is anything that is "too much" "too less" and "too ..."

 

Where is the "too much tax" limit and who is these people?

[(MoC)]

Equal opportunity makes things fair, not everyone having an equal amount of money.

 

I strongly agree. Most of us get to choose how and where we will end up.

[Paranoid Marvin]

To be perfectly honest, I would not want to live in a communist country. It is, however, the fairest way of doing things (though maybe not the best)

 

I quite like the semi-socialist system with have here, with socialised medicine and a good welfare system.

No matter where you are born in the UK, you can get into university. If you are born rich, that's great, you get the world handed to you on a silver platter. But if you are born into a poor family, the government can support your secondary education with Educational Maintenance allowances, where you are given extra money to support you (ie, you get paid to go to school). And then when you are at university (in Scotland you pay no fees), the government can support you by paying your fees.

Ultimately, anyone can go to university and get a good education no matter how rich or poor they are.

The 'American Dream' is a lie - come to the UK where the government actually supports you if you are disadvantaged.

 

Generally though, on the subject of fairness, nothing can be completely fair.

If you really want to get down to the nitty gritty, no one should have free will, that way they can't do anything to anyone else that makes them better or worse off. But this isn't 1984, it's 2008, and no matter what is said, a socialist or communist society is much, much fairer, as it gives everyone equal chances to suceed

[Numberzz]

To be perfectly honest, I would not want to live in a communist country. It is, however, the fairest way of doing things (though maybe not the best)

 

I quite like the semi-socialist system with have here, with socialised medicine and a good welfare system.

No matter where you are born in the UK, you can get into university. If you are born rich, that's great, you get the world handed to you on a silver platter. But if you are born into a poor family, the government can support your secondary education with Educational Maintenance allowances, where you are given extra money to support you (ie, you get paid to go to school). And then when you are at university (in Scotland you pay no fees), the government can support you by paying your fees.

Ultimately, anyone can go to university and get a good education no matter how rich or poor they are.

The 'American Dream' is a lie - come to the UK where the government actually supports you if you are disadvantaged.

 

Generally though, on the subject of fairness, nothing can be completely fair.

If you really want to get down to the nitty gritty, no one should have free will, that way they can't do anything to anyone else that makes them better or worse off. But this isn't 1984, it's 2008, and no matter what is said, a socialist or communist society is much, much fairer, as it gives everyone equal chances to suceed

In California, you can go to any of the public universities if your GPA is above 3.0. It doesn't matter which High School you go to, just get above a 3.0 GPA. Also, any public school is at your disposal. Sounds fair...

[Paranoid Marvin]

In California, you can go to any of the public universities if your GPA is above 3.0. It doesn't matter which High School you go to, just get above a 3.0 GPA. Also, any public school is at your disposal. Sounds fair...

 

And what if you can't afford health insurance and your son gets meningitis?

There may be free clinics, but are they as good as the paid for ones?

[3nigma]

And what if you can't afford health insurance and your son gets meningitis?

There may be free clinics, but are they as good as the paid for ones?

Yeah, but in the UK, all the clinics are free, and all of them are not as good as the paid-for ones.

 

I'm an American living in Wales, so I know the subject on both sides.

 

-3nigma

[Alessandro17]

Yeah, but in the UK, all the clinics are free, and all of them are not as good as the paid-for ones.

 

I strongly disagree. I was operated at St James's University Hospital in Leeds of (something similar to) Carpal tunnel syndrome. I couldn't have wished any better, both from a medical and general care point of view.

[(MoC)]

Well, this is off topic but look at what wikipedia spat out:

 

"Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) or Median Neuropathy at the Wrist is a medical condition in which the median nerve is compressed at the wrist, leading to pain, paresthesias, and muscle weakness in the forearm and hand.[1] A form of compressive neuropathy, CTS is more common in women than it is in men, and, though it can occur at any age, masturbating for men makes the pain go away because of the motion it loosens the nerve has a peak incidence around age 42. The lifetime risk for CTS is around 10% of the adult population."

[Alessandro17]

Yes I read that, but what I had was not quite Carpal tunnel. The fingers affected were not the same.

And besides it affected my left hand. Masturbating with your left hand is not ideal, unless you are left-handed.

[killbot1000]

My opinion is that stealing is wrong anyway you put it. The person that is rich most likely did something to better human kind and deserves his or her reward.

 

It's this statement that I have a big problem with...

 

Most people who are rich do not BECOME rich in their lifetime, they are usually born into wealth and then make even MORE money in their lifetime.

 

Nobody DESERVES millions, or perhaps billions of dollars. What people do deserve to have, if they work hard and contribute to the overall good of society is a nice home, health, food. And a good little stash for extra fun.

 

Most of these people who make millions of dollars could have the same lifestyle, even if they had a lot less than they do now...they couldn't maintain huge business empires, but why should they!?

 

Most people want to work, most people want to be productive, there are a few of us that dont, but those are the people that more capable people in the society should help, not everybody can make it on their own...It takes a village to raise a child, and people need help a lot more then they think they do, we're not solitary animals, we function in groups, and the only way that we can function to our fullest potential is if we start to look at eachother as part of the overall picture.

 

Some Billionaires decide to give a lot of their money away to charities, organizations, etc. And thats nice, but the thing to consider is that the system that allowed them to make such ridiculous amounts of money in the first place is inherently exploitative in nature, while they are giving their money to charities, it was never their money to begin with, its the Society's as a whole.

 

I am not a communist, I don't think that everybody should make the same amount of money. Doctors should obviously make more than janitors, and work should be performance based, meaning you do a better job, you get paid more. But if somebody is working full-time and cant even pay the bills, theres a problem there, a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

So much wealth is concentrated into the hands of the few, it needs to be taken from them, not stolen. The way we do this is through taxes. In what world does it make sense that after making a certain amount of income your taxes go down? Theres caps on all kinds of taxes, Social security being one of them, if I have to pay 30% of my income to the government, Rich {censored} billionaire should have to as well. I don't think I'm unreasonable for saying this. It's hard to feel empathy for a billionaire having to pay a lot of taxes while children are starving, and people are having problems with the basic essentials of life.

 

I feel everybody deserves to be middle-class if they put effort into their lives and their society, and actually end up contributing. Anything more than that is a combination of excess/and good luck.

 

(I don't usually advertise this, but in this case I feel its appropriate, I am not rich but I am in a higher income bracket than most people, I will pay taxes...gladly! So long as the the general population is helped by them and that they aren't simply used as a wealth transfer mechanism to make rich Bankers even richer [federal income tax])