|
|
Atlas Shrugged
Started by Guvmint Cheese at 10-19-2007 2:18 PM. Topic has 4 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 10-19-2007, 2:18 PM
|
Guvmint Cheese
Joined on 10-19-2007
Posts 2
|
|
|
Hi, first, I want to say that I just stumbled on this forum, and I think it's very informative. I'm on my fifth read of Atlas, and I just came upon Ragnar's "Robin Hood" speech. I have tried to come to terms with it, but I'm at a loss.
The crime that Robin Hood has committed is that he "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor." The question I have is whether that's a fair assessment of his activities. Robin Hood takes place circa 1200 in feudal England, a country run by lords and barons (which I read as "the government") who received their lands not by the fruits of their labor but by the spoils of war. The feudal system was effectively thrust upon many of England's inhabitants of the time, reducing many to indentured servitude. These lords and barons had earned their living through either the labors of their servants or the taxation of their earnings from said labor. No production, per se, is done by these governing lords or barons.
While I can't really put the common uneducated 12th Century peasant in the same boat as a Rearden, Hammond, Stockton, or Galt, I have to notice that all of them actually produced, and the villains in both stories, be it governing lords or barons of a feudal England or a Wesley Mouch of the national government, did not produce.
Robin Hood, from where I can see it, took from the non-producers and gave back to the indentured producers - somewhat similar to Ragnar D.
Was Ms. Rand perhaps too wrapped up in the "rob from the rich and give to the poor" concept promoted in Robin Hood to truly appreciate the state of affairs in feudal England, or is there something I am completely missing in regards to the situation.
Your insight would be greatly appreciated.
Guvmint Cheese
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2007, 2:59 PM
|
Josh
Joined on 10-29-2006
Posts 56
|
|
|
|
I can't remember the exact wording in atlas on the story. but from my memory of it, he refers to people getting the wrong message from the robbin hood story "steal from the rich, give to the poor," instead of the proper message "steal back from the leeches and give to the producers." i don't think rand was bashing the story itself, only the parasites interpretation of the story. people have claimed moral ground based on this story and they have no understanding of the moral implied (kind of like setting up a straw man, but more like creating a straw moral hero). i always took ragnar as ayn rand's reclaiming of the robin hood story. anyway, it's a story. as any product it's sold to the consumer (the reader) to be used for the buyer's own personal gain. interpret it how you like.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2007, 12:20 PM
|
Guvmint Cheese
Joined on 10-19-2007
Posts 2
|
|
|
|
Ah, going over it again, I guess I'm hung up on the sentence: "Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most
immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth
and no way for mankind to survive." From Ragnar's (Rand's) statements preceeding, your explanation makes sense. It is not that Robin Hood is "the most
immoral and the most contemptible" but the popular interpretation of Robin Hood which is so.
Thanks - that's been bugging me for 15 years!
Guv. Cheese
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2007, 10:55 AM
|
Zip
Joined on 11-26-2007
Posts 4
|
|
|
|
I also thought that Robin Hood, by giving the wealth to the poor, eliminated their need/will/desire to take back the riches for themselves and thereby prepetuated the system that enslaved them.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
09-24-2008, 8:13 AM
|
Dingo_aus
Joined on 09-24-2008
Posts 3
|
|
|
|
I view Robin Hood as the story of Robin Hood. Effectively Robin Hood is not the man in the 12th Century ,if he ever existed, but the ideal that is created when modern day stories of Robin Hood are recounted. When the modern story is told we are not told of the Barons and Lords and of wealth and production. We are told to think in black and white, the rich and the poor and the lesson to be learned is of wealth redistribution not for a complex reason but that the poor were poor and the rich had wealth which could be applied to the plight of the poor.
I think Rand would not have treated the subject as she did if the modern story contained elements Objectivist philosophy such as more emphasis on the Sheriff of Nottingham being a looter whose crime was not being rich in the face of poverty but of using force to prevent capitalism being the order of the day.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Nove... » Atlas Shrugged » Robin Hood's Crime?
|
|
|
|