I mean, seriously, fuck him. Fuck everyone who made him a legend, who made him a hero and not the villain he was. And also fuck everyone, who, since this English folklore legend was written up, wanted to be some kind of Robin Hood. The most likely reason this asshole was excluded from polite medieval society was, that he was a thief in the first place, not that he was a supporter of one king or another. If the law of the land is the 8th commandment “You shall not steal”, then you’re an outlaw if you do. The early folk tales/ballads don’t indicate that he only stole from the rich and don’t indicate at all that he gave to the poor. It looks to me that the “legend” had it’s origins in a scare story about a highwayman and evolved into a hero story, made up by people who made money by telling/singing stories.
Modern day Robin Hoods call themselves socialists. They think of themselves as heroes if they steal from the rich and give to the poor. And they don’t mind at all, that between the stealing part and the giving part, most of the money ends up in their own pockets. If you think it’s honorable to be a thief, stealing is a moral good, even if the stolen goods dissipate into your own Cayman bank account.
The Robin Hood association popped into my mind when I read a Quillette article about “Is democracy doomed?” and one commentator dared to say “You missed the point”. Quote:
All very arcane, but seems to miss one hypothesis that has potential application through a large part of the West: the welfare state has expanded to such an extent that more people ‘vote for a living’ (ie are net benefit recipients and/or are employed by government) than ‘work for a living’ (ie are net taxpayers and work in the private sector, creating rather than redistributing wealth).
Once that tipping point is passed, an ever-expanding majority of beneficiaries form ever-shifting coalitions to extract wealth from ever-diminishing numbers of net tax payers who generate wealth. Having miseducated youth who know nothing of history but have a strongly cultivated sense fo[r] grievance helps the process along.
As Bastiat observed, “The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” More pointedly, Alexander Fraser Tytler is said to have argued: ‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.’
If these views from 200 years ago have force in explaining what is going on today, higher taxation and further separating welfare from work are only going to accelerate the collapse.
Read the article about the insufferable Yasha Mounk for yourself. It’s IMHO a muddle-headed approach to defend an idealized version of democracy that never existed versus unspecified fears about most other forms of government. The author says “This is where the professor and I differ. His argument for democracy in crisis is convincing.” Is it, though? Mounk argues that support for democracy is dwindling, and that a growing minority of especially younger people would rather support a populist strongman or even military rule. Dear boy, have you lived under a stone the last 2 years? The Americans have voted for a populist strongman who is now in the white house, not the first one, but one who isn’t afraid to admit that he is one. And when does military rule start? When you have former generals in leading positions of government…..whooops? Or when half of the budget goes to the military, and for how many decades already? What Mounk does is so typical of social scientists and their ilk. They propose solutions for problems which don’t exist. As soon as their solutions are implemented politically, they point out the problems they helped create and want to solve them by proposing more of the same solutions which created the problems in the first place. It’s utterly idiotic and insane.
The article says: […]He [Mounk] proposes higher taxation to lower levels of economic inequality, liberalized housing policies in major urban areas so as to not lock people out of greater economic opportunity, a redesigned welfare state that “decouple[s] social benefits from traditional employment,” renewed interest in civics education, and other things …[…] In other words, Mounk proposes totalitarian equality in order to prevent the totalitarian tendencies he thinks he has identified among the American Trump voter. Let that sink in for a minute. Fuck Robin
Hood Mounk, seriously, fuck him.
This new form of democracy that was somehow largely agreed upon in the west around the throes of WWI has reached the end that was predicted by A.F. Tytler 100 years before it even existed. This democracy is doomed, because the majority of voters discovered, that they can vote for stealing from the rich (and the middle class) without being called a thief and without the risk of going to jail for the theft. These democratic countries went from a country of workers who eat (reap) what they sow, to a country of thieves who steal the crops of their neighbors (yes, the 8th and 10th commandment mixed into one). Not to get too biblical here, but the ancient agricultural societies, on the background of still having hunter gatherer societies around, had to actually write down that you must not steal or want any of your neighbors property.
A society of thieves who feel good about themselves is a society of Robin Hoods and his “band of brothers”. It’s a bunch of assholes who made plunder the law of the land. There’s nothing to respect about the Mounks of this world who devise ever more intricate methods of “the art of stealing”. The 700 year old tale of Robin Hood is a work of art, the art of deception. The are so many ways you can justify stealing, but we all know it’s wrong. I’ll have any chapter of “The art of the deal” any day over a chapter of Mounk’s book “The people vs. democracy – Why our freedom is in danger & how to save it”, which would be more aptly named “The socialists vs. the workers – Why our freedom to steal is in danger & how to save it”.
And since I started this article with the word “fuck”, and it’s thereby doomed and inappropriate for polite society, let me make another equally disgusting analogy. Have you heard of the incurable strain of gonorrhea recently reported in the UK?
How about “Dr. med. Mounk” telling you to wrap it in a small towel, take these two antibiotics, wait two weeks until it all cleared up, burn your underwear after that and then you can keep on humping whoever is willing to be your cum-receptacle of the day. A hooray for ‘diversity’.
How about “Dr. med. Luisman” telling you that this might be the last time you can be cured. That you should stop raw doggin’ crazy bitches and generally stop ‘putting your dick in crazy’. That the newly developed antibiotics may not work or be prohibitively expensive. That if you’d want to have a long and healthy sex life, you might consider having a relationship based on monogamy.
For some strange reason one of these advises is called progressive and good, the other conservative and bad. Maybe we have contracted incurable socialism, and nothing can save us from that. Maybe we should follow the ideas of Antifa an should punch Nazis, the real ones, the national and international SOCIALISTS? We’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t.
Pic is from pixabay.