Mr. Adam Young,

I think the poster of “The Adventures of Robin Hood” is the wrong image to use in your article.

In the movie, Robin Hood starts by robbing the taxers and returning the money to the poor but, later, the money goes to King Richard’s ransom (the other “State”).

At the banquet offered Robin’s “guests” (aren’t the people starving?) he asks what to do with the money. Everyone shouts “Give it to Richard”.

In this movie, the character played by Errol Flynn isn’t a hero. He’s a politican!

Best Regards, from Portugal
BZ

Like Guy Fawkes (who failed in his attempt to blow up the House of Lords), Robin Hood is a likeable old buffoon, for whom all Englishmen have a soft spot because they both cocked a snook at “The Establishment”. There was also a whiff of illicit sex involved in the Robin Hood story, giving it an element of naughty excitement when we were young. (I am now 60.) But Robin Hood robbed the rich to give to the poor. He was a socialist who practised what he preached.

I must myself say that this is an especially weak artical comming from Mises. As a regular reader, I expect good history, Austrian economic analysis of situations, and just plain good quality. I found none of that in this particular piece. I say this only because, I would assume you would want to know if you are sending mixed messages to people, and because I would assume you would want negative feedback, as well as possitive feedback so you know how to better yourself and learn more “what the market” wants.

Adam’s is a very one sided view of the Robin Hood tale. I’ve, in fact always viewed Robin Hood as a thief. It was this Robin Hood mentality of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, that gave us the income tax, and other socialist policies. This is the “romantic” view of him that coventous people today worship him for.

If he did steal from the government as well, then good for him. But for the most part, the stories of him — at least in todays versions of the tale — do not show him as such.

Tracy

I disagree with the assessment of other posters who called Robin Hood a Thief and/or Socialist.

For one, the popular fable has him as a former noble himself, who had been wronged and started out with seeking justice, failing which and meeting other victims of the state’s looters, he begins to steal from the thieves and shares the booty with the rightfull owners, the populace from which the goods had been taken to begin with.

The fact that the populace was poor, and didn’t do anything to deserve such largesse, is indeed irrelevant in so far, that it was by and large the state who made them poorer than they were before, and Robin didn’t make them rich, but gave them back a part of what had been taken from them.

There is also the item to consider that Saxon High Kings were considered the servants of their people, and that Saxon nobility typically paid their way from their own pocket (or by looting distant shores). Taxes to the nobility where simply a land usage fee, in return for which the nobility secured highways, protected villages and administered the law of the land.

Taxes raised by the church were only applicable if the church was the land owner. Other revenue for the church came from donations and endowments.

What went awfully wrong in this perfectly functioning and apparently quite fair system, was that the crown appointed tax collectors to raise additional taxes, the collection of which not only impoverished the peasantry, but also the country nobility.

To avoid an uprising and keep the nobility at bay, the crown allied itself with the church, giving the church the right to raise taxes of her own.

This was the prevailant scenario when the legen of Robin Hood came into existance.

Most notably, Robin and his minions dwelled in forrest that was crown land, hunting the crown’s game.

If anything, then I would almost classify Robert of Loxley as the quintessential Libertarian rebell who took from the state what wasn’t the states’ to begin with.