This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Was Robin Hood a socialist?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
In soviet russia Robin Hood steals from the poor.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
An discussion that makes sense?... in
randomness
? Oh my!
I wont engage in it but please remember that there are different kinds of socialism, the one everyone dreamt of (utopy, impossible once man first claimed something as his, in my opinion) and how it was in the soviet union.
Now my opinion is that Robin Hood isn't a socialist, because he actually isn't opposed to monarchy right?He is more like a just hero who goes for what he believes to be right, that people shouldnt suffer because of those of higher tiers (that is against monarchy... ouch paradox.. headaches)
But this discussion doesn't make sense. What you basically have in this thread is one guy saying it's ok to steal money from people because he's not a political entity, but it's automatically bad for government to do it because it's the government; i.e. people you elect to govern you.
No government is bad in theory, in fact
bad
is subject to personal opinion.
Government is not bad... the people who govern you can be bad, however.
Post by
MyTie
Couldn't let this die, could we Laihendi?
Ok. I've been playing defensive since my first post, not critisizing others, and demanding that they explain thier views, and distorting what they say when they do explain it. That's not my style. But I've been handleing quite a bit of that from the other side.
Oh Laihendi, we could've done great things together.
Now then, allow me to rebut what you said I said.
1) Socialism can only be enacted by a government.
2) Robin Hood was not the government.
3) Robin Hood's actions were therefore, not socialism.
So, Laihendi, based on the above made points, answer a question for me:
Given two polls, one asking if the person being questioned overall agreed with the actions of Robin Hood, and the other poll asking if the person being questioned overall agreed with socialism, which would have a higher approval rating?
Post by
Laihendi
Robin Hood. As you have shown yourself, there is a strong bias against socialism in America.
So based on those 3 points you listed, it's ok if in the stories Robin Hood does (in principle) the same thing that a socialist government does, simply because it's not called socialism when he does it.
And what do you mean "couldn't let this thread die"? That was Laihendi's first post since he made the thread...
Edit: Laihendi isn't distorting what you said, he's pointing out the contradictions.
Post by
MyTie
Robin Hood does (in principle) the same thing that a socialist government strives to do, but failes to do because of the burocracy involved, and the mismanagement of asset values in the market. The overall distortion of the value of time and commodoties in an effort to evenly distribute funding to the lower classes has an inherent tendancy to lower the value of those commodoties. This type of government would also have to continue increasing its size, and therefore beurocratic cost in order to compensate for goods produced, eventually costing more that the goods it seizes. This is completley neglecting the point of inevitable corruption in a monopolistic government. Thus, an individual (Mr.Hood), can be much more successful at the enterprise of financial regulation on a small scope. The discussion about whether the redistribution of these funds is morrally correct in the first place, is open for interperetation.
There I fixed it for you.
Post by
Laihendi
So you basically set up the worst scenario for a socialist government, and therefore socialism is bad?
Post by
Queggy
The problem with giving money to the poor and needy is this -
You work a 9 hour work shift at your office to pay expenses for You, your Wife, and your son and daughter Susie and Bobby. Your neighbor Mr. Chakosky recently lost his job at the local lumber mill. He can't get another job and has no way to pay expenses for Mrs. Chakosky and their four sons Billy, Freddy, Timmy, and Joey. The government then takes money from you and "spreads the wealth" around so that the Chakosky's won't become hobos. But then Mr. Chakosky realizes that he doesn't have to work anymore! The government will pay for everything! So now you are paying for two families, not just your own. So you decide that if Mr. Chakosky isn't going to work, then neither are you! Now the government takes care of both of you! Where do the get that money from? Other people who will end up doing the same thing as you!
And if you say it isn't going to end up like that, well guess what? The government of Hawaii recently had a thing where they would pay or help pay for some of your medical stuff if you were classified as "needy" or whatever. (I forget exactly how it went) And people realized,
"Hey! We can get the government to pay for all our stuff! We won't have to do it!"
So then that put so much pressure on the State government, they had to stop the program. That's why I don't like this whole "spread the wealth" deal. It just won't work out.
Post by
MyTie
Laihendi:
Unless you can give me an example (historical or present) of one that is better.
Queggy:
Nice to have company over here on the right side of the fence.
Post by
Queggy
/bow
You're welcome MyTie.
Post by
123022
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
Anyways I think Robin Hood was the opposite of a socialist. He took from a greedy government that was over taxing and gave it back to the people.
He was giving the money back to the hard working people that earned it I think he would be a republican if he was into politics today.
I don't understand why anyones for welfare. Why would you want your money to go to people that probably don't deserve it?
I would be for a welfare plan that would give money to people that are working 40 hours a week and can't afford there bills.
/clap
Well said.
Post by
Laihendi
/facepalm
Laihendi knows people who are working 2-3 jobs but are still living in poverty. Clearly they are just too lazy to make money for themselves, right?
And this isn't a democrats vs republicans discussion...
Concerning Mytie's request for an example, although the UK and France are not officially socialist, they certainly both have socialist leanings, and both countries are doing pretty well right now for being in the middle of a global recession. Also, there was much experimenting with communism (what is called socialism today) during 18th century Europe (primarily France). This was done in small communities, not large nations of hundreds of millions of people, but the point is that when confined to a single community (communism... think commun-ityism) it was successful.
Bureaucracy is not part of ideal socialism, that is added by incompetent governments.
Post by
Laihendi
The problem with giving money to the poor and needy is this -
You work a 9 hour work shift at your office to pay expenses for You, your Wife, and your son and daughter Susie and Bobby. Your neighbor Mr. Chakosky recently lost his job at the local lumber mill. He can't get another job and has no way to pay expenses for Mrs. Chakosky and their four sons Billy, Freddy, Timmy, and Joey. The government then takes money from you and "spreads the wealth" around so that the Chakosky's won't become hobos. But then Mr. Chakosky realizes that he doesn't have to work anymore! The government will pay for everything! So now you are paying for two families, not just your own. So you decide that if Mr. Chakosky isn't going to work, then neither are you! Now the government takes care of both of you! Where do the get that money from? Other people who will end up doing the same thing as you!
And if you say it isn't going to end up like that, well guess what? The government of Hawaii recently had a thing where they would pay or help pay for some of your medical stuff if you were classified as "needy" or whatever. (I forget exactly how it went) And people realized,
"Hey! We can get the government to pay for all our stuff! We won't have to do it!"
So then that put so much pressure on the State government, they had to stop the program. That's why I don't like this whole "spread the wealth" deal. It just won't work out.
What you have pointed out is a valid problem, but it is not a problem with government, it is a problem with the greed and laziness or each individual person.
Post by
Queggy
What you have pointed out is a valid problem, but it is not a problem with government, it is a problem with the greed and laziness or each individual person.
I agree, if people could actually be trusted to not succumb to their greed, then socialism could work, but it will never happen. So there is no point in worrying which can never happen. Well, it
can
happen, just not properly. . . :(
Post by
Laihendi
Isn't capitalism an economic system entirely based on greed though...
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.