Elijah, Robin Hood was originally an Earl himself and therefore was one of the "elites".

This may be the reason that the communists (as far as I know) have never used the Robin Hood myth for propaganda purposes.

To be fair to Lance though, Robin Hood has often been depicted as fighting high taxation and tyranny.

I still maintian that the myth has been tied up in so much class-war type socialism over the years, it is really not credible to believe that Robin Hood symbolises a Libertarian freedom-fighter.

A conservative wants to engage in busybody-ism, passing laws to moralise, protecting people from themselves, and they engage in initiation of force at the drop of a hat.

Freedom to conservatives (generally) means freedom only applying to people like them..(the average Remmers Matron does not quite view 'freedom' applying to the average Otara beneficiary)...indeed, "corporate welfare" is an excellent example of a conservative view of a free market.

I cannot call myself an objectivist because I cannot accept Ayn Rand's contention that you should only call yourself an objectivist if you agree with everything (or words to that effect)...I am not really a 'blind loyalty' sort of chap, nor a hero worship sort of chap, indeed, I am the strongest critic of those I admire because I admire them (if you know what I mean?)

A libertarian believes everyone should leave everyone else alone, believes in freedom, believes in literally free markets, believes in taking advantage of opportunities, believes that 'each to their own' is important and everything should be voluntary.

Whenever anything is proposed a libertarian will ask "why should I do this?", whereas a conservative will shrug their shoulders and go along with it.

Freedom to a genuine libertarian means literal freedom... the freedom to hate, to make profits, to engage in Sunday witchcraft-ism, communist activities, devil worship, heroin overdosing, unsafe sex, drunk driving, eating takeaways, subscribing to the Listener, beastiality, holidays in Queensland and 1001 other activities.

I also believe libertarianism results in elitism. something to be welcomed and encouraged.

This results from those who take advantage of opportunities compared with those who do not...as an obvious example, a chap who makes large profits has the money to buy a certain lifestyle compared with the dustman; and the grandchildren of the businessman will never work a day in their lives but the grandchildren of the dustman will.

The dustman lived in a World of numerous opportunities but did not take advantage of them, and the dustman's grandchildren are most welcome to end intergenerational poverty and join the businessmen.

Just my view of the World

I'm interested to know what, in your view, distinguishes a libertarian from a conservative, and an Objectivist (which I know you don't claim to be) from a subjectivist? I'm not thought-policing, just genuinely interested.

I am a great libertarian, Lance.

My view is that during the last couple of hundred years a myraid of reforms have been undertaken, along with economic and social changes, which have provided opportunities for everybody.

For anyone not to take advantage of those opportunities means they are choosing to be poor or unsuccessful; and in the same way the most intolerant people are those who preach tolerance, you can spot the unsuccessful by the "Excuse Making" cottage industry which springs up when certain types of people hit milestones in life (turning 40 or 65 or whatever), or when they have telephoned talkback radio, or whatever.

Apart from free market 'literal' capitalism, small Government and balanced budgets, the great Libertarian politicians (Gladstone, Jefferson, Palmerston, Thatcher etc) sought a reform of institutions to enable opportunities to increase, and that I wholeheartedly support and encourage.

It is, however, up to individuals to take advantage of those opportunities and if they do not there is a fairly inevitable result.

Naturally anyone taking advantage of opportunities is a parasite, moocher, thief and other nefarious, shady type, especially in the view of the poor and unsuccessful.

On the subject of money, I think Gordon Gekko summed it up most accurately when he said "it's all about bucks, kid, everything else is just conversation..."

It all depends on the ideology inserted into the legend. In one telling, Robin Hood is stealing back the taxes that were collected in the name of ransoming Richard Lionheart, which were instead furnishing the palatial lifestyle of Prince John, to actually use them to ransom Lionheart. In another Robin Hood is amassing the wealth for himself and his bandits. In another he is stealing back the taxes and giving them back to the taxed.

To put it as Elijah does:

Quite a disgrace to steal from rich people and give the money to poor people who should have been industrious and imaginative enough to have earnt their own money.

The Robin Hood legend sums up poor people quite accurately with their desire to do no work and expect handouts, whilst unaware that indolence (rather than a great conspiracy by rich people) is the reason for their poverty.

Is to not only select exclusively the "from the rich to the poor" slant, but shows his wilfull ignorance, shockingly distorted view of actual history (the social and political structure of kingdoms and fiefdoms) and bizarre prejudices.
When a society is not free, amassed wealth as a measure of morality is just plain fucked up. But of course we know that of Elijah already don't we, that his moral compass points due '$' exclusively, even if it makes one a moocher, a parasite or a thief.

Elijah when will you give up the idea that you are any sort of libertarian?

Everything that needs to be said about Robin Hood has already been said, and packed into a neat, tidy paragraph:

"I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men's minds, we will not have a decent world to live in...He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. We'll, I'm the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich-or, to be exact, the man who robs the THIEVING poor and gives back to the productive rich."-Ragnar to Reardon, "The Moratorium on Brains," ATLAS SHRUGGED

(p.s): Even Rand acknowledged the "legitimate" aspect of the Robin Hood myth:
"It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbers, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived."

Yes, Elijah, but wasn't nearly all of their money, or if not money, the food that they grew, taken by the Sherriff of Nottingham? The poor people didn't have much chance to get ahead under those conditions.

Robin Hood was a communist.

Quite a disgrace to steal from rich people and give the money to poor people who should have been industrious and imaginative enough to have earnt their own money.

The Robin Hood legend sums up poor people quite accurately with their desire to do no work and expect handouts, whilst unaware that indolence (rather than a great conspiracy by rich people) is the reason for their poverty.

"A supporter of low taxes, a government limited by strict constitutional construction and natural law, and offensive military expeditions against the Saddam Husseins of his time."

Attributing support for a freedom promoting constitution and anti-Iraq war sentiment to Robin Hood?!!!

No matter how Lance tries to re-interpret it, the myth of Robin Hood was always "steal from the rich and give to the poor" because he is representing a pro-Christian (updated to pro-New Age Environmentalism) and pro-peasants against the aristocracy (updated to pro-Socialism) agenda.

Maybe it's not the actual legend of Robin Hood that is the problem, but the general modern public perception of him.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

Let's hope Ridley Scott does him justice in his upcoming production Nottingham and makes his thievery a noble act.

Russell Crowe in tights... that'll get Lindsay going.