i must admit, when it comes to spawning rapidly metastasizing forum threads, brainbomb knows wut da fuq he's doing.

I agree with ND. Robin Hood is a story about a corrupt socialist vigilante redistributing money to poverty stricken peasants at the detriment of the aristocracy

What is your political compass corner

"I agree with ND. Robin Hood is a story about a corrupt socialist vigilante redistributing money to poverty stricken peasants at the detriment of the aristocracy"

No.

The sequel to Robin Hood: "The Sherrif of Nottingham's kids starve to death in a socialist hell" was a decidedly less popular.

Brain, absolutely not. The story really boils down to Robin Hood and his Merry Men, aka a militia, who goes after a Prince. The Prince and his sheriff represent the government and institutional state power and authority (Taxation, Enforcement, Police, etc). Their rule is unjust and Robin Hood and his Merry Men, aka a free Militia, take the money from unjust taxes from the Prince and redistribute it to the forgotten men and women. It has nothing to do with socialism.

The difference between Robin Hood and socialism boils down to whether you trust a vigilante to redistribute the money or whether you trust the government to redistribute the money.

@hedin
What's your opinion on America desperately trying to paint Russia as the bad guys if you're from Russia? Curious to get a perspective from the other side.

@bo

um... no. Robin hood took BACK money the government had taken, and gave it out to the poor. this was a vigilante reacting to a seizure of money, NOT a vigilante initiating a redistributive process without any other factors

the story itself in many different versions shows that when Robin Hood gave back to the poor, he would give back what was taken from them: there are no direct mentions of a perfectly equal redistribution.

"um... no. Robin hood took BACK money the government had taken, and gave it out to the poor. this was a vigilante reacting to a seizure of money, NOT a vigilante initiating a redistributive process without any other factors"

See, this is my point. Frame the story of Robin Hood differently, and he's some evil bastard. Frame the story of Robin Hood the way that the story of Robin Hood was written, and he's a "good vigilante," according to JamesYanik.

If Robin Hood were real life, conservatives would treat him the same as they do Edward Snowden.

ND (588 D)
01:48 PM
+1
Brain, absolutely not. The story really boils down to Robin Hood and his Merry Men, aka a militia, who goes after a Prince. The Prince and his sheriff represent the government and institutional state power and authority (Taxation, Enforcement, Police, etc). Their rule is unjust and Robin Hood and his Merry Men, aka a free Militia, take the money from unjust taxes from the Prince and redistribute it to the forgotten men and women. It has nothing to do with socialism."

You are describing Fuedal society of peasants and serfdom as if its comparable to todays social democracy. The better comparison to fuedalism is corporate interests driving out small business and over worked - underpaid serf labor.

If robin hood lived today he would be robbing walmarts and mcdonalds and giving back to the workers.

@bo

um... what? i mean in modern society stealing from government reserves is bad, because we have laws and representation so we can Change things. back in the days of Robin Hood there was no representation for the common folk. because of this, they rebelled.

i mean that's essentially using the Declaration of Independence as a framework of thought.

I'm trolling ND, stop taking bait that's not for you ffs

@brainbomb

choose exxon or something: walmart and mcdonalds have amazingly cheap products that people want. on a national level they're far from exploitive, they're successful in fairly competitive markets

@bo

...

no

("when you look at the history of the Robin Hood myth, it took around two hundred years for the idea of explicitly “giving to the poor” to emerge in versions of the story. Fifteenth century references to Robin Hood are longer on his being an outlaw or even an itinerant felon who has no livelihood. In 1605, Robert Cecil used the name of Robin Hood to associate the Gunpowder Plotters with sedition and treachery. One reading of Meek’s account is that it is just the powerful reclaiming a preferred narrative.

The limit of the Robin Hood myth is that, because he is a pre-modern bandit, there is essentially nothing political about his acts of robbery, even if the poor benefit from them. Bandits, as Hobsbawm observed, make lousy socialists. And of course, in many tellings of the story, it requires the return of King Richard – the good King – to restore order and harmony to the land. It took a later generation of proto-modernists, the English Parliamentarians of the 17th century, to realise that it was in ourselves, not in our stars, that we were underlings, and to put on trial, and then execute, a King for treason.")

Walmart and McDonalds lol

Yes. For labor exploitation amid soaring profiteering. Subway is a great example of wage theft too.

This is what robin hood of today would be working to destroy.

http://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year-survey-data-show-millions-of-workers-are-paid-less-than-the-minimum-wage-at-significant-cost-to-taxpayers-and-state-economies/

Hahaha, Robin Hood existed in a pre-capitalist society, so y'all are right he was a lousy socialist. Don't really think there's a lot of comparisons that can be made with today's world. I'll admit I was wrong on that one, I was mostly just trying to troll.

But I think bb is right. Today he would be robbing Goldman Sachs.

@Yanick

"BY the people, FOR the people. without individual rights there ARE NO rights according to democracy. i mean our country was founded off of those basic libertarian ideals and it operated pretty well, and was amazingly prosperous.

i know people will point to Societal ills like slavery and sexism and whatnot, but these complaints are of culture, and have little to do with political structure.

- also because i'm a mind reader, slavery did NOT create the American wealth and prosperity. in fact, removing millions of wage earners from a market has BAD effects. that's why the Union in the civil war was at the cutting edge of industry and technology and the south was barely developed, rural and agriculturally based. the institution of slavery hurt our economy"

See, I think it is interesting you said this. I don't think this is true. I don't think "politics is downstream from culture," I think that the structure of societal institutions partially determine how people think about things (ideology, religion, etc.) ( this is Marx's materialist conception of history).

And uh... I mean, other people have argued it, but the idea that America's wealth was not built off slavery is pretty ahistorical. By the time the Civil War started, the North was more prosperous, but in the 300 or so years before that, slavery had been the centerpiece of both the Southern and the American economy. People like to think the North had clean hands but it didn't. Everybody benefited from slavery. The idea that it was a result of "culture" is just... not correct.

My point about libertarianism and democracy is this: if libertarians want the government not to intervene in the economy, that is limiting democracy.

The government is at least in principle accountable to the public. The private sector *in principle* is not. I can vote for a new President if I don't like his policies, but in principle I have no say in the way big companies operate. (People can "vote with their dollar" but that doesn't do much.) Well, one way people can have an influence on the economy is through government policies to regulate it, but this goes against the libertarian credo. So if people vote to say, raise the minimum wage, libertarians hate that, because they think people should be ruled abstractly by "the rules of the market." That's an anti-democratic attitude.

Plus, I think in reality most people are probably more oppressed on the daily by their boss than by the federal government. And most libertarians are bitterly opposed to union organizing. So that's sort of the giveaway. If you don't want workers to be able to control their workplace, you do like authority. You just like the authority of the private sector.

What is called "libertarianism" in America to me, is deeply committed to authority: the authority of the boss. Early libertarian thinkers like Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin were all socialists because they recognized that capitalism was incompatible with human freedom. They didn't like the government, but they also didn't like the coercive and oppressive effects of the "free" market.

Sam, you know not what you speak of and have been terribly misinformed. That, or you are trolling again.

@Manwe where was I wrong?

Actually in that one webdip post he just convinved me to become a liberal again

@brainbomb

that article provides no data, and only vaguely mentions it's sources. i has already read the Cooper 2015 and 2016 reports and i can already tell that the EPI article you posted entirely misinterpreted the legality of what was happening. some of the reports on misclassification on worker type i can look into deeper, but the simple fact is that wage "theft" is fully legal, and we haven't seen lawsuits brought to these companies en masse. furthermore, if you want a more simplified code for workers and wages (and taxes): that's a Republican ideal.

it's the bureaucracy and legal mess that allows companies to get away with stuff like this.



@SamWest


"See, I think it is interesting you said this. I don't think this is true. I don't think "politics is downstream from culture," I think that the structure of societal institutions partially determine how people think about things (ideology, religion, etc.) ( this is Marx's materialist conception of history)."

well first of all politics is simply people who write legislation, and those people are voted in by the masses... so yes political ideals are representative of their constituency. look at history for more context, there were suffragettes BEFORE Universal Suffrage, there were abolitionists BEFORE slavery was disbanded, most social changes we see the government implement, come after a cultural shift.

now government institutions can make it hard to get RID of bad culture, such as government keeping the institution of slavery, helped solidify that culture. however, we rarely see politicians spontaneously coming up with new radical ideas, than THEN are accepted by society.


"And uh... I mean, other people have argued it, but the idea that America's wealth was not built off slavery is pretty ahistorical. By the time the Civil War started, the North was more prosperous, but in the 300 or so years before that, slavery had been the centerpiece of both the Southern and the American economy. People like to think the North had clean hands but it didn't. Everybody benefited from slavery. The idea that it was a result of "culture" is just... not correct."

well you didn't read any of my articles, so let me repost them below. slavery is NOT good for overall economic health. we say CENTURIES of economic slavery in feudalism: those were called the DARK ages. once the enlightenment (and luther's anti-establishment religion, the medici banking family and capitalism came along) we began to see progress.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/aug/15/economic-case-for-ending-slavery

https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2017/04/24/why-slavery-wasnt-just-a-monstrous-evil-it-was-also-bad-economics/#2d4a76a112a1

so those articles simply show facts about how slavery is bad for an economy overall. if you want to argue that point... you're in the minority bud.


"My point about libertarianism and democracy is this: if libertarians want the government not to intervene in the economy, that is limiting democracy."

yes.

we're not a country that a votes on every little thing... like we don't get to vote on the right to free speech. we don't get to vote on the right to a fair and speedy trial. we have a constitution, with certain unalienable rights. it 100% limits democracy... in fact here are some notable quotes from our founders:

Alexander Hamilton: "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Benjamin Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

and also when asked what form of government we had: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

John Adams: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”


"The government is at least in principle accountable to the public. The private sector *in principle* is not. I can vote for a new President if I don't like his policies, but in principle I have no say in the way big companies operate."

of course not: the "private sector" are simply individuals engaging in business. you should not be allowed to force individuals to produce a certain good at a certain price under threat of government


"(People can "vote with their dollar" but that doesn't do much.)"

actually it's a driving market mechanism that has ruined many companies. Delta Airlines anyone? massive losses always occur when companies do something immoral, UNLESS the government is there to bail them out. this is historical fact.


"Well, one way people can have an influence on the economy is through government policies to regulate it, but this goes against the libertarian credo. So if people vote to say, raise the minimum wage, libertarians hate that, because they think people should be ruled abstractly by "the rules of the market." That's an anti-democratic attitude."

1. yes it's antidemocratic, it's pro-individual rights
2. the ACTUAL problem for the minimum wage is immigration, and low job growth. when you have too few jobs and too many laborers: you have a low wage. but liberals force a minimum wage, which hurts small businesses, increases unemployment, and drives up income inequality. the biggest minimum wages are in democrat controlled areas, predominately large cities, where across the board we see the larger poverty, income inequality, low income mobility, monopolies, and high unemployment volatility.

this is all under Democrat policy. explain THAT to me.


"Plus, I think in reality most people are probably more oppressed on the daily by their boss than by the federal government. And most libertarians are bitterly opposed to union organizing. So that's sort of the giveaway. If you don't want workers to be able to control their workplace, you do like authority. You just like the authority of the private sector."

libertarians have no problems with unions, they have a problem with unions who work with the government to create "closed shop" laws, where UNLESS you join a union and PAY fees, you can't work for certain companies. that's GOVERNMENT interference with unions. THAT is what libertarians hate... me personally i love the idea of organized and informed labor. unions need reform, not disbandment.


"What is called "libertarianism" in America to me, is deeply committed to authority: the authority of the boss. Early libertarian thinkers like Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin were all socialists because they recognized that capitalism was incompatible with human freedom. They didn't like the government, but they also didn't like the coercive and oppressive effects of the "free" market."

those were NOT LIBERTARIANS! those were ANARCHISTS who became socialists. while some libertarians ARE anarchists, that is a radical fringe group. most libertarians want small government (BUT STILL SOME!) that's on a local level, and not tied to any businesses.

libertarians of the 1800s also are FAR different from the modern movement... so you need to get with the times.

From about "But I think bb is right." to about "They didn't like the government, but they also didn't like the coercive and oppressive effects of the "free" market."

@Manwe

he thinks the USA is democracy-orientated. this is a VERY inaccurate notion, as i'm sure you're aware

Do you know why there are no tragedy films about wealthy people being taxed by a social democracy to fund poor peoples healthcare?

Its not a trick question.

I think I know the answer.

Because society finds entertainment in the underdog story - the little guy overcoming oppression.

By nature a guy making 250 million a year is neither a victim nor an underdog. Unless you watch wolf of wall street and think dicaprio's character is a victim of evil-oppressive big govt regulation lmao

@Yanick

I don't *think* the USA is democracy oriented. You correctly pointed out it is not, the Founding Fathers hated and feared democracy that would take away the property rights of an opulent minority. I think it *should be* democracy oriented.

And I'm sorry, a political philosophy that says it is in favor of human freedom but wants to limit the ability of people to make decisions on how they are governed and how the economy functions is antithetical to freedom. If you don't think democracy is an inherent good, that's fine. But you clearly then don't like liberty in any real sense, because you want to limit people's agency.

And I know about contemporary libertarianism, I have no interest in it. It's sophistry. Your argument is again, business owners should be allowed to do whatever they want, run everyone into the ground and people should have no influence in what they do. That's authoritarianism, it's private tyranny, and the pseudo-intellectual defenses of it are piffle.

Yanik probably thinks Bernie Madoff was just an innocent victim of overregulation