Robin Hood is Evil
Ragnar Danneskjold: "But I’ve chosen a special mission of my own. I’m after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live in."
Hank Rearden: "What man?"
Ragnar: "Robin Hood."
Ragnar: ". . . [Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as the moral idea." ". . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. 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."
The Pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld
From Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged
Hank Rearden: "What man?"
Ragnar: "Robin Hood."
Ragnar: ". . . [Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as the moral idea." ". . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. 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."
The Pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld
From Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged
posted by Scotty V. at
9:07 AM
20 Comments:
I agree 100%. Rand's a great thinker. To think of something like this is pure genius.
Rand was a psychopath, and this quote proves it further still... (she may have been a sociopath, I leave it up to mental health professionals to determine if she was psychopath or sociopath)...
Let it be remembered that Rand's theology was borrowed by Anton Szandor LaVey for the Church of Satan...
This really is a "survival must be earned", "The sick must die. Only the strong should live" mentality which led the Nazis to gas disabled people... It doesn't belong in any civilised society.
We at this time have the means to give most people a chance at survival... but to the Objectivists among you, the right to live is of lesser value than the right to someone to acquire yet another luxury item for his great big collection... even though his being in this situation owes itself a great deal to luck and to the infrastructure of society maintained by the "parasites" of which Rand was so fond....
No infrastructure maintained by the "parasites", probably no inventions, no fortunes by these so-called great people, the leaders of whom are, in many cases, psychopaths and sociopaths in their own right...
1. Rand was not a psychopath or socio-path. Those types of people can't function properly enough to live in a rational society. That was a very dumb thing of you to say.
2. There is nothing borrowed from the Church of Satan in "Atlas Shrugged". Why are you spitting vague unrealistic comments which you obviously know nothing about onto this blog?
3. We have the means to give most people a chance at survival BECAUSE of our capitalist society. Why is it that the communist countries are among the worst of sufferers?
4. The "parasites" in the novel were the looters and moochers. NOT the people who helped build the infrastructure. The people who helped build the infrastructure were the one's who were held in a light of personal responsibility.
5. In the novel, NOBODY said the sick must die. NOBODY said Only the strong should live. NOBODY said survival MUST be earned. What are you quoting?? The novel is a defense against people who say the successful people of the world are evil.
6. Go read the novel and don't post VAGUE comments and DIRECT insults about a novel and a group of people because YOU'RE bitter.
I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine
Who is John Galt?
Rand is a psycho.
What he forgot is that those that have been robbed by Robin, robbed from the people in the first place. There's nothing to do with "want" or "dont need to produce".
Most of you live in a developed country, so your taxes are low. Well let me give you my POV. I live in Brazil, where I pay 33% taxes overall. I work 4 months only to pay my government, my king if you wish, and I keep seeing on the news, how they use that money that I produced(paying their own stuff, corruption), so ppl deny taxes(our own Robbin Hood).
@rgoytacaz
Rand was a "she" brah.
@rgoytacaz
Scotty V. didn't put the full quote from the book in there, but Ragnar recognizes that the real story of Robin Hood was how he was stealing from the rich that stole from the poor through taxes, and then Robin Hood gave it back to them. But even though that's the true story, no one remembers it as such so that's why he much destroy the story of Robin Hood,
"[Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor."
Get it now?
Also @Anonymous above
"We at this time have the means to give most people a chance at survival..."
They don't have the chance to survive? Who's taking it away? Rich business owners who provide a product for society and also employee America?
"but to the Objectivists among you, the right to live is of lesser value than the right to someone to acquire yet another luxury item for his great big collection... even though his being in this situation owes itself a great deal to luck and to the infrastructure of society maintained by the "parasites" of which Rand was so fond...."
Who's taking away anyone's right to life and liberty? Ayn Rand stood for those rights. Your rights end where another's begins, just because you may not do what is needed to provide for yourself doesn't mean you have the right to steal from someone else. If you think so, then go do it on the street and see where you end up (hint: jail).
Also I love when you liberals refer to the free market as luck, like anyone starting a business has a chance at being successful, and it's just that the poor never got their chance. That's BS, look at Steve Ells of Chipotle who started that business from an $80k loan and has now grown to billions. Or any of the other thousands of similar examples. You think that was luck? Luck from that businessman's hard work, luck from knowing what product consumers wanted? Give me a break, business owners worked hard to start up their business, putting their time, money, effort, and risk into that business and by doing so they give back to the nation with a product people want and employment for many. They've earned every penny from starting that business, and if you took their business away and gave it to some random poor person to give them their "lucky chance" like you refer to it, the business would be pissed away.
One more news flash, wake up and realize the infrastructure of society you refer to is actually maintained by the rich productive class. The top 1% of wage earners in this country pay 60% of the federal income tax. You wouldn't have everything the government has given you if the rich weren't paying the taxes, and you wouldn't have the products they've produced either.
Didn't robin hood take from the parasites of the society of his time. All the people he stole from received their wealth from oppressive taxation or from the serf system, which was little better then outright owning slaves. It seems to me robin hood took from the parasites what they had stolen from the original producers. I would think that robin hood closely parallels Ragnar and King John is associative with James Tagart and company. In this case I think Rand choose a poor example.
I think one of the things which is forgotten about Robin Hood is that he didn't "Rob the Rich and Give to the Poor" - read the initial texts. Robin Hood robbed the "Tax Collectors" who pillaged those producing - and returned what had been taken by government force to the people (producers) from whom it was taken.
The common belief that he robbed the wealthy to redistribute income only came into being in the past century - as a way to justify government taxation to support "social programs". Read the original texts.
As one of the previous comments said, the entire story was not posted originally. Ragnar wants to destroy the perception of greatness that people see in Robin Hood as a provider to the poor for charity's sake. Robin Hood did steal from those who stole (through taxes), but this is not what is remembered. What is remembered is that Robin Hood took money from the rich (whether they earned it or not) and gave it to the poor because of their claim that they "needed it."
People who read Ayn Rand and continue their spewing of filth are FILTHY beyond reality....too bad...(tv) AnthonyShrugged http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tony-venuti The ex-CONservative Radio Hour....Ayn Rand channeled daily 1-3 est...
1. Rand was not a psychopath or socio-path. Those types of people can't function properly enough to live in a rational society. That was a very dumb thing of you to say.
1. You think? Hitler for sure wasn't one. And before em[hasizing on rational - well what Rand calls rational is waht she likes and irrational to her is what she dislikes - just like a child. People like Hitler will emrge and take control by manipulating people in every REAL society. Because humans are far more complex creatures that those inhabiting Rand's fictional world. She may be wasn't a sociopat but was an infantile who oversimplified the world.
2. There is nothing borrowed from the Church of Satan in "Atlas Shrugged". Why are you spitting vague unrealistic comments which you obviously know nothing about onto this blog?
2. Well actaully it was said that LaVey borrowed from Rand, but you read only what you like, so no wonder why it seems so vague.
3. We have the means to give most people a chance at survival BECAUSE of our capitalist society. Why is it that the communist countries are among the worst of sufferers?
3. Capitalism is good when under state control. Anarchocapitalitic fantasies are not. Believe me, radical capitalism is as bad as communism, let's not say worse.
4. The "parasites" in the novel were the looters and moochers. NOT the people who helped build the infrastructure. The people who helped build the infrastructure were the one's who were held in a light of personal responsibility.
4. Maybe all people who go on strike becaus they live in horrible conditions are looters in this line of thinking? May be all revolutions that rid us of tyrants, aristocratic elites and religious indoctrination were just senseless lootings... Atlas Shrugged is unrealistic.
5. In the novel, NOBODY said the sick must die. NOBODY said Only the strong should live. NOBODY said survival MUST be earned. What are you quoting?? The novel is a defense against people who say the successful people of the world are evil.
5. It is implied. To think that the successful are always good and the unsuccessful always bad (libertarianism) is as stupid and dangerous as to think the opposite (communism). The world isn''t black and white.
6. Go read the novel and don't post VAGUE comments and DIRECT insults about a novel and a group of people because YOU'RE bitter.
6. The only bitter person here is you. I am not the author but I have read many RAnd's books. Sorry that not everybody shares your point of view. Grow up and get used to it.
Oh I liked this I will show these to my friends^^
Robin Hood is evil because he violates the free will of those he 'takes' from, not even God Almighty will bring himself to violate the right of an individual to choose.
Robin Hood cannot possibly be aware of any possible selfless generosity exhibited by his victims. Robin Hood rots in hell.
This is silly. Sure there are perverted versions of the Robin Hood story this may apply too. It may apply to the original I don't know.
But in every adaptation of Robin Hood I have seen he is fighting against unjust taxation and oppression. He steals from looters and uses it mostly to undermine the authority of the sherrif. By for instance giving it to people who "need" it because they are being pressured by the state to doing something...
Regardless of initial text, Rands IDEA, the sheer concept of Robin Hood still stands, do not take from someone else under the guise of charity, or for the purpose of equality. The victimization of the villagers is an issue in and of itself, similar to the dead eyed pedestrians who simply let themselves be preyed upon. I think there is parells there too.
@rgoytacaz
33% taxes overall is very low. Try being a successful professional in the UK.
It's all besides the point though - if you read the book you'll see that Ragnar acknowledged that at times Robin Hood was seen to return what was taken from the poor - but that isn't the sentiment that has been adopted by the mainstream masses. The modern Robin Hood takes from the rich and gives to the poor for equality of outcome - not equality with regards to individual rights.
Ragnar himself is a Robin Hood character - except a virtuous one. He doesn't take from the rich and give to the poor - he takes from the looters and gives it back to it's rightful owners.
First, a few thoughts:
When I first read Robin Hood when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade (yes, even government schools were much better back in the day), my first emotion was that Robin Hood was stealing from the the mean sheriff who stole the money from people IN THE FIRST PLACE, or arbitrary "taxation." To that end, the premise of Robin Hood is presented as an actual champion of justice.
But what had happened was other stories had become prevelant, such as "A Tale of Two Cities," "Oliver Twist," even "A Christmas Carol" (though the last story is more a tale of personal morality rather than that of state-sponsored theft). To that end, the collectivists started to interpret Robin Hood as equating the Sheriff with the (productive) rich.
In fact, when we discussed Robin Hood in 8th grade civics class, the teacher opined that the Sheriff represented the "haves" vs the "have nots" that Robin Hood was stealing for. I remember trying to correct the teacher, but was reproached.
So that interpretation is what I believe Ayn Rand was projecting through Ragnar Danneskjold. Certainly, I have no qualms and in fact would champion a Robin Hood that was successful in repatriating funds for individuals whom had it stolen in the first place.
Go Robin Hood pagan hero and nature guardian!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home