Research Paper On Robin Hood
Robbin’ Hood
“You know somethin ', Robin. I was just wonderin ', are we good guys or bad guys? You know, I mean, uh? Our robbin ' the rich to feed the poor” (Robin Hood, 1973).
Little John and Robin Hood ponder the ethical dilemma of their ambition to assist the poor by stealing from the wealthy government. In theory, taking money from a government who earned its wealth by grossly over-taxing the poor is a noble deed. The underlying implications and real world scenarios that parallel Robin Hood’s plight, however, are not so noble. The misleadingly positive concept of “Robin Hood” masks the negative realities enforced by the government in an effort to level the playing field. Destroying Robin Hood, thus removing the candy-coated barrier to reality, is my ultimate desire. I am “the friend of the friendless” (Rand, 1957, p. 529). My name is Ragnar Danneskjold. …show more content…
I can easily and truthfully answer the moral dilemma that Robin Hood and Little John face; they are in fact “bad guys”.
While Robin Hood and his Merry Men set out to award aid to the poor, I question what the recipients of their aid had done to earn the help. Ironically, it is the not the stealing aspect of Robin’s operation that appeals to my objection. The disagreement instead lies in the distribution of unjustly stolen goods and money to unworthy beneficiaries. I seek to erase the concept of Robin Hood from the entire world by stealing from those who need the help and returning the seized wealth back to its rightful owner – the party that earned
it.
In a meeting with Hank Rearden, I began to plant my influence and explain what some perceive to be “criminal behavior”. Ten years of Rearden’s life, money, and efforts were spent developing a revolutionary form of steel that was lighter, cheaper, and more durable than the previous standard. The new steel was the choice of nearly every steel customer. While Rearden Steel’s business boomed due to a superior product and his own ingenuity, other steel mills were lacking in productivity by making excuses and demanding assistance. In response, the government tried to force Rearden to share the recipe for his superior steel with other steel mill owners. I fiercely contend that Rearden should reap all of the benefits of his own steel without having to graciously surrender his innovation. In fact, I have taken, and will continue to take drastic measures to see that Rearden Metal is not produced by anyone but Rearden.
Conversely, Robin Hood would distribute Rearden’s steel recipe; in other words, “…robbin’ the rich to feed the poor” (Robin Hood, 1973). I maintain, however, that there is nothing negative about an individual reaping the benefits of something that he or she earned, but that the true evil lies in distributing unjustified assistance. Why does this form of capitalism have such a derogatory association?
I remember what happened when Directive Number 10-289 was enforced “in the name of ‘general welfare’…” (Rand, 1957, p. 497). The absurd components of 10-289 halted innovation and called for geniuses to lower their standards and share their inventions with half-witted, parasitic Looters. In sheer irony, these Looters seek to destroy the very people that they rob. As Robin Hood would say, “Rob? Tsk, tsk, tsk. That’s a naughty word. We never rob. We just borrow a bit from those who can afford it” (Robin Hood, 1973). Can anyone afford to spend infinite amounts of time creating, nurturing, perfecting, and maintaining a product only to hand it over politely? I certainly do not think so.
Robin Hood’s socialist movement has thrived before my time, and continues to thrive in government politics. Socialism breeds stagnation. Status, prestige, and wealth, all of which ideally come from hard work, no longer exist. As a result, no one wants to work hard and innovation and creativity do not flourish because they are not profitable. The only thing that thrives is laziness, idleness, and redundancy.
Some may argue that I am a criminal; however, I am passionate about my purpose. I commit “criminal” acts as an agent of morality “because my love, the only value I care to live for…[is] human ability” (Rand, 1957, p. 535). I am its ambassador, as it cannot speak. Sadly, this world contains individuals who not only make a living, but pride themselves on the triumphs of other people’s abilities.
My ideal world is without the concept of Robin Hood. Perhaps denying compensation to those who need it most will spawn the drive to create, advance, and improve conditions for self and society. Even if ideas, wealth, and prestige are “merely” borrowed from those who pay their dues, the effect on society is tremendous.
Little John begins to feel the trepidation as he finally answers Robin Hood’s candy-coated claim about borrowing: “Borrow? Boy, are we in debt” (Robin Hood, 1973). Yes they are.
References
Rand, Ayn. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Signet Publishing Company.
Reitherman, Wolfgang (Producer & Director). (1973). Robin Hood [Motion Picture]. Burbank, CA: Buena Vista Distribution Company.
“You know somethin ', Robin. I was just wonderin ', are we good guys or bad guys? You know, I mean, uh? Our robbin ' the rich to feed the poor” (Robin Hood, 1973).
Little John and Robin Hood ponder the ethical dilemma of their ambition to assist the poor by stealing from the wealthy government. In theory, taking money from a government who earned its wealth by grossly over-taxing the poor is a noble deed. The underlying implications and real world scenarios that parallel Robin Hood’s plight, however, are not so noble. The misleadingly positive concept of “Robin Hood” masks the negative realities enforced by the government in an effort to level the playing field. Destroying Robin Hood, thus removing the candy-coated barrier to reality, is my ultimate desire. I am “the friend of the friendless” (Rand, 1957, p. 529). My name is Ragnar Danneskjold. …show more content…
I can easily and truthfully answer the moral dilemma that Robin Hood and Little John face; they are in fact “bad guys”.
While Robin Hood and his Merry Men set out to award aid to the poor, I question what the recipients of their aid had done to earn the help. Ironically, it is the not the stealing aspect of Robin’s operation that appeals to my objection. The disagreement instead lies in the distribution of unjustly stolen goods and money to unworthy beneficiaries. I seek to erase the concept of Robin Hood from the entire world by stealing from those who need the help and returning the seized wealth back to its rightful owner – the party that earned
it.
In a meeting with Hank Rearden, I began to plant my influence and explain what some perceive to be “criminal behavior”. Ten years of Rearden’s life, money, and efforts were spent developing a revolutionary form of steel that was lighter, cheaper, and more durable than the previous standard. The new steel was the choice of nearly every steel customer. While Rearden Steel’s business boomed due to a superior product and his own ingenuity, other steel mills were lacking in productivity by making excuses and demanding assistance. In response, the government tried to force Rearden to share the recipe for his superior steel with other steel mill owners. I fiercely contend that Rearden should reap all of the benefits of his own steel without having to graciously surrender his innovation. In fact, I have taken, and will continue to take drastic measures to see that Rearden Metal is not produced by anyone but Rearden.
Conversely, Robin Hood would distribute Rearden’s steel recipe; in other words, “…robbin’ the rich to feed the poor” (Robin Hood, 1973). I maintain, however, that there is nothing negative about an individual reaping the benefits of something that he or she earned, but that the true evil lies in distributing unjustified assistance. Why does this form of capitalism have such a derogatory association?
I remember what happened when Directive Number 10-289 was enforced “in the name of ‘general welfare’…” (Rand, 1957, p. 497). The absurd components of 10-289 halted innovation and called for geniuses to lower their standards and share their inventions with half-witted, parasitic Looters. In sheer irony, these Looters seek to destroy the very people that they rob. As Robin Hood would say, “Rob? Tsk, tsk, tsk. That’s a naughty word. We never rob. We just borrow a bit from those who can afford it” (Robin Hood, 1973). Can anyone afford to spend infinite amounts of time creating, nurturing, perfecting, and maintaining a product only to hand it over politely? I certainly do not think so.
Robin Hood’s socialist movement has thrived before my time, and continues to thrive in government politics. Socialism breeds stagnation. Status, prestige, and wealth, all of which ideally come from hard work, no longer exist. As a result, no one wants to work hard and innovation and creativity do not flourish because they are not profitable. The only thing that thrives is laziness, idleness, and redundancy.
Some may argue that I am a criminal; however, I am passionate about my purpose. I commit “criminal” acts as an agent of morality “because my love, the only value I care to live for…[is] human ability” (Rand, 1957, p. 535). I am its ambassador, as it cannot speak. Sadly, this world contains individuals who not only make a living, but pride themselves on the triumphs of other people’s abilities.
My ideal world is without the concept of Robin Hood. Perhaps denying compensation to those who need it most will spawn the drive to create, advance, and improve conditions for self and society. Even if ideas, wealth, and prestige are “merely” borrowed from those who pay their dues, the effect on society is tremendous.
Little John begins to feel the trepidation as he finally answers Robin Hood’s candy-coated claim about borrowing: “Borrow? Boy, are we in debt” (Robin Hood, 1973). Yes they are.
References
Rand, Ayn. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Signet Publishing Company.
Reitherman, Wolfgang (Producer & Director). (1973). Robin Hood [Motion Picture]. Burbank, CA: Buena Vista Distribution Company.