Robin Hood: A Libertarian Hero Defamed (!)
Amidst all this discussion of a “Robin Hood Tax” it occurred to me that collectively we seem to have seemed to have forgotten the story of Robin Hood.
Robin Hood famously “stole from the rich and gave to the poor”. But before socialists claim him I’d just like to point out one little detail. The poor were poor because of hugely punitive taxes. They were imposed by Prince John to fund the statesman’s extravagant lifestyle. A factor in turn augmented by an already heightened level of taxation due to his brother’s (King Richard’s) costly middle eastern conflict (the Crusades). You could say the fable holds some parallels with modern day Britain…
Far from being a socialist, Robin Hood took money off the wealthy elite and gave it back to those who had generated it in the first place, redressing problematic redistribution. Sounds like a libertarian to me.
Naming a tax after a man who is, by all means, a libertarian hero must surely be defamation!
February 12th, 2010 at 1:52 am
In that case, someone tell Ayn Rand, her novel needs updating.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:56 am
Oh no! Does Ayn deviate from the spin?
February 12th, 2010 at 1:59 am
Well, In Atlas, she constantly talks about how Robin Hood was a theif stealing from the productive.
Whilst at the same time having one character steal tax money (in gold) from the government for the heroes.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:26 am
As the resident Ayn Rand specialist of this parish (see “Mastermind”), I do believe she posited a libertarian Robin Hood in Ragnar Danneskjold who “liberated” goods purchased from general taxation and refunded to working people the value of the tax they had paid on income earned from productive work.
Matthew DOT Platts AT Gmail DOT Com.
February 12th, 2010 at 2:30 am
None of the original Robin Hood stories had him rob from the rich and give to the poor. He did once help out a toff who was in debt to the church and stood to lose his lands. Does that count?
February 12th, 2010 at 2:47 am
Taking money from the rich, redistributing to those who create wealth (the workers).
Can’t see Marx objecting!
February 12th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Surely, Sara, Robin Hood is less a systematic economic actor than a legitimation crisis personified? For if there’s a metanarrative here, it’s the exceptional quality of Robin Hood’s practice, so clearly only acceptable in the tiny window of historical time where something has gone wrong with what is otherwise seen as a timeless, unchanging and God-given order of feudal rights, responsibilities and patterns of deference.
The atmospheric nostalgia for a Saxon alternative is, presumably, largely if not entirely a concession to nineteenth century British [sic] attitudes towards race, nation, imperialism and ‘progress’. Yet what makes ‘Robin Hood’, in his present-day archtypal formulation, something more than simply another transgressive apology for poaching is purely and simply this emphasis on the problematic nature of suspended or suspect legitimacy, which both Robin and the reader / auditor are left to navigate as best they can, armed with whatever moral or ethical principles they can bring to the party. Never was there a less ideologically systematised narrative than ‘Robin Hood’.
That being so, one could make that Robin Hood was a particularly pragmatic sort of Tory – but I would say that, wouldn’t I? 😉
February 12th, 2010 at 10:38 am
“Far from being a socialist, Robin Hood took money off the wealthy elite and gave it back to those who had generated it in the first place, redressing problematic redistribution. Sounds like a libertarian to me.”
Actually, it reminds me rather of more or less every variant of socialism…
February 12th, 2010 at 10:56 am
No, guys, Robin was not a socialist. Look at his enemy, Prince John. His enemy was the state. It was the state impoverishing the people of Nottingham.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:09 am
But it was a bad state, Sara, for the reason that it was an illegitimate state – that was why it was okay to oppose it, from Robin Hood’s point of view – once Richard returned, the state was good again, and opposing it was bad once more.
That is part of the reason, although clearly not the whole reason, why it is hard to make easy comparisons between a story about feudal England and the realities of postmodern political culture.
Admittedly, it’s still more interesting as a project than most, which I suppose is why we’re all thinking about it.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:34 am
[…] Make that four good links. Liberal Vision points out how Robin Hood is being defamed. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Daniel Krall v. Robin […]
February 12th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Before we all get to wrapped up in the Hollywood version of the Robin Hood mythology…..
It seems extremely UNLIKELY that Robin Hood lived in the reign of Richard I / Prince John (early ballards consistently refer to the King being Edward).
The most likely truth about Robin Hood is that, if indeed he lived at all, he lived during the reign Edward II (early 1300s) and was probably a Knights Templar escaping persecution following the Papal Bull (October 1307) excommunicating all Knight Templars and resulting in the bloody murder of a sizeable number of them. The band of Merry Men probably included other Knights hiding out from the Crown.
So my suggestion is that Robin Hood was fleeing religious persecution when he took to the woods with his mates. The enemy was the Roman Catholic Church which issued the original death warrant on the Templars (hoping to get its hands on the wealth accumulated by the Knights) and the Crown for attempting to implement it (no doubt on a commission). The Knights hiding out in the woods struck back at the Crown, took the riches as they needed, and disposed of rest amongst the poor.
So I put it to you that the tale is one of a greedy desire of one powerful organisation to get its hands on the immense wealth of another by demonising it and using the then law (papal bull) to implement legal robbery (oh plus a bit of good old-fashioned philanthropy in the woods).
February 12th, 2010 at 11:58 am
To be clear…..
I put it to you that the tale is one of a greedy desire of one powerful organisation (Church /Crown) to get its hands on the immense wealth of another (Knights Templar) by demonising it and using the then law (papal bull) to implement legal robbery (oh plus a bit of good old-fashioned philanthropy in the woods – well the Knights were fighting Monks after all!).
February 12th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Entirely in keeping with previous form that Capitaine Scarlett’s version of history seems to be taken from a Walt Disney cartoon.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
… and eye-opening – even chastening – to a cynical rodent that AH is working off something like real history!
February 12th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Thanks SN. However, in the post I describe the story of Robin Hood as a ‘fable’. I don’t actually think for one minute that he actually existed. So yes, I do take my fiction from Disney which is also, ya know, fiction. It really serves me right for writing pithy posts intended to entertain but yes, well done Angela.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Squirrel Nutkin, I wouldn’t speak too soon. I seem to remember from the time when I actually knew stuff about this that “Robin Hood” or versions thereof was a fairly generic term for an outlaw from early on – certainly predating the suppression of the Templars. That doesn’t preclude later re-tellers of the legends from having included Templar elements, of course.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Aha! And once more, wikipedia is our friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_hood#Early_references
February 12th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Oh Alix – you and I know wikipedia is fine – as far as it goes….but it is not the font of all knowledge…If you really are interested in the subject I strongly suggest you read “Robin Hood: The Unknown Templar” by John Paul Davies. I give it a 9/10. The author seems to have gone through every ballard and reference known (and some unknown) in his research AND (rather refreshingly) did not come at the book from any particular angle – but made his conclusions after he had examined all the data. How novel!
February 12th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Sorry Angela, any book with a title like that has me thinking of Dan Brown. So Maid Marion was actually descended from Jesus, and Robin Hood was sent by Leonardo da Vinci to stop the Sheriff of Nottingham finding the grail. Maid Marion = MM = Mary Magdalene. Can’t be a coincidence, shurely!
February 12th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Ok, you need to look at the footnotes. The reference is to J C Holt. What I should have explained is that I’ve checked back and Holt was on my medieval criminal law reading list from when I was last studying, so probably it (and the Hilton article in Past and Present) was where I originally got the idea about the generic name. I shall try to look out my copy and confirm it says what Wikipedia says it does over the weekend. Does the book you mention address the Holt eyre roll findings?
“AND (rather refreshingly) did not come at the book from any particular angle – but made his conclusions after he had examined all the data. How novel!”
Heh. I’ve heard this language before (and written a blog post about it). I am struck again by the similarities between how certain types of popular history are marketed, and how alternative medicine is marketed. Both sell the idea that the “orthodox” and often “old boy network” professionals/academics are too blinkered or prejudiced to possess the searing insight or open mind of the alt guy. The alt guy’s relative lack of qualifications is sold as a positive advantage.
Still, that’s just the marketing. Often the texts themselves are better. I’m sure it’s got some interesting stuff and I shall certainly read it. Like I say, there’s no reason why the legend couldn’t have been reworked for a later political purpose like the Templar suppression.
February 12th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Joe, your problem is that you’re closed-minded, blinded by orthodoxies and stuck in the mindset of the establishment. If you draw lines between all the Woolworths in Britain and then connect them to the Pyramids you can prove that Atlantis is buried under Milton Keynes.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
“Capitaine Scarlett…”? Perhaps we should rename this site Spectrum Headquarters!
On a more serious note, if you want to get into the legend of Robin Hood, I think one has to go way back before kings called Richard, John or Edward to the era of The Green Man and Herne the Hunter. I don’t mean as in Michael Praed, but rather as in the fact that English (and all) history is peppered with mythical figures.
If memory (and a BA in Medieval History) serves, Robin Hood qua Robin Hood is first recorded in the reign of Henry II and seems to still be plying his trade 150 years later in the time of Edward I. He doesn’t get nailed down to the later Angevins until much later (and finally by our friends, the Victorians). But the legend clearly echoes a far more ancient belief.
As for his being a libertarian – and ignoring the historical anachronism that is being proposed here (I presume somewhat jokingly) – it rather depends on whom he is robbing. In some tales he robs merchants and gives to peasants, which is basically theft. In other tales he robs from tax collectors and returns it to the taxpayers, which is basically anarchism. In others still he is less interested in money than in justice – fighting the oppressive forces of sheriff and king – in which case he is a freedom fighter.
He’s a legend. He can be anything you wish!
February 15th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
He’s a legend. He can be anything you wish!
Exactly. Well said.
Just to clarify, my comments above – not entirely serious – addressed our present-day Robin Hood mythos, Victorian tidying-up, Hollywood swashbuckling and all.
Of course, if you want to go back to the Ur-Robin Hood, the story’s quite different, and quite possibly boils down to a fantasy about how to acquire lots of food without doing much work – food being to the pre-modern imagination more or less what sex is generally presumed to be to the post-modern imagination – without much in the way of policy overtones, as few of our present-day underclass, urban or otherwise, would have the wit to slay, butcher and consume a deer. Alas.
January 29th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Jonna Womac…
[…]Liberal Vision » Blog Archive » Robin Hood: A Libertarian Hero Defamed (!)[…]…