By: Rosemary Dewar
The tale of Robin Hood is one of the most misinterpreted stories of the conflict between good and evil. He is usually depicted as the righteous thief, the valiant and defiant defender of the poor. The history of England surrounding Robin Hood’s origin presents a starkly different story. 12th century England was overwhelmed by war and debt. Predictably, the poorest of society began to revolt because many were taxed into poverty. Because the distinction is not clarified, those that advocate for governmental redistribution of wealth attempt to re-frame the ‘Robin Hood’ type of virtue for themselves.
Stealing for the sake of equality is about as moral as stealing bread from a priest. The regressive left attempts to use religious charity as a warped appeal for compassion. If Robin Hood was indeed stealing from King John, it is still immoral. No different than when Les Miserables’ Jean Valjean is stealing from Bishop Myriel. Stealing is wrong. Period.Today, taxing only the rich is presented as a moral and “nice” thing to do. The reality is that the demand for equal wealth is taxing a targeted group at an unequal rate. That is a serious contradiction.
The word “nice” comes from the Latin root word for ignorant. The virtue of niceness is not a Judeo-Christian principle. When the left demands that someone not be offensive, they are demanding that they “be nice.” The Judeo-Christian worldview stresses that one should be wise. It asserts, “Listen to counsel and receive instruction, that you may be wise.” Sometimes that manifests itself as admitting when one is wrong.
Now, Robin Hood may not have been a social justice rebel. He might have simply been a libertarian in a feudalist, authoritarian system. In Feudalism, a serf or vassal was given land to work and fight for a lord or king. King John took advantage of his brother’s, King Richard’s, absence while King Richard was at war. Instead of managing the kingdom on low taxes, so the lords and serfs could efficiently steward the land, he raised taxes and eventually starved the people. Robin Hood’s opposition to King John may not have been theft. It might have simply been refusing to pay exorbitant and unfair taxes.
Democrats want to say they are not taxing the poor, but they are. Obamacare is the perfect example. When someone couldn’t afford “affordable care,” they received an IRS penalty – in other words, another tax. When a government promises a service in exchange for your taxes and they don’t serve you, that’s stealing as well as lying. Furthermore, when a government continues impractical economic practices and accumulates debt, it slowly enslaves its citizens. When a government system fails, their answer is always more taxes.
Founding father John Adams stated, “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword.The other is by debt.”
Like it or not, socialism and communism use both to conquer not only a country, but the culture as well. Government is a sword, or in the present case a gun. When someone does not pay their taxes, they go to jail like Al Capone did when America was cracking down on the mob. However, someone like Al Sharpton goes untouched because he forwards the left’s agenda. When the law does not judge impartially, it fails morally. It is neither wise nor healthy nor moral to drown a society in debt.
Former U.K. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli truly stated, “Debt is the prolific mother of folly and of crime.” The deeper the United States has fallen into debt, the more prevalent corruption and unrest has become. It is time to think on Robin Hood as a governmental-libertarian, not a left-wing, socialist advocate.
It is not advised that one not pay their taxes. If the issue is to limit the percentage that someone is taxed, the solution is to continue to work toward relying on the government less. Expressing one’s desire for independence will not come with an increase in government-funded social services. Both cannot and will not coexist.
By: Rosemary Dewar
