Surely if he stole from the rich and gave to the poor , the poor then became the rich !! he would then steal from the rich etc etc.
2006-11-25 11:15:26 · 15 answers · asked by Midnight Dynamo 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Mythology & Folklore
This is true but he will never be out of a job will he
2006-11-25 11:17:21 · answer #1 · answered by Yeah yeah yeah 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Exactly. Robin Hood has been made out as a hero for what he did, but too often people only take it at surface value. Robin Hood wasn't just transferring funds here, people! If the rich had been rich because they earned it in a true, fair system, then Robin Hood would be a thief worthy of all our condemnation. As it was, he stole from the rich because they were undeserving of the money and rich only because of a feudal system that kept the poor poor through tenant farming, indentured servitude, and caste systems.
He always was supposed to be symbolic- his act was not actually to transfer money, although it did and that's what he wanted, but to make a statement about who should have the money and the unfairness of the system. Otherwise he's just a one-man path to communism and the oppressed becoming the tyrants- a never-ending cycle, as you point out.
Good question!
2006-11-25 19:27:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Robins plan is based on the fact that the poor spend more of their income on consumables than the rich. By increasing the amount of money the poor had to spend, Robin hoped to make the rich richer and as a result increase the profitability of his own enterprise. The enterprise was so successful, it eventually became known as the British Empire Inc.
2006-12-01 13:38:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He didn't steal the rich people's entire savings. He only stole enough for the poor people to live off.
2006-11-25 19:18:19 · answer #4 · answered by uk_lad_2003 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The real name is Robbing hood he stole from the rich cos the poor had nothing worth nicking
2006-11-25 20:04:24 · answer #5 · answered by manicmalcolm 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There were (and still are) many more poor people than rich people. So he would never run out of poor people to give money to. I guess if he did it enough he would eventually reach a point of equilibrium where everyone had exactly the same amount of money.
2006-11-25 20:09:34 · answer #6 · answered by Roy F 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Robin Hood was a roben old sod he did rob the rich and salted it away and giving to the poor is a lot of balls!! today he'd be doing a stretch
2006-12-01 12:50:44 · answer #7 · answered by srracvuee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
robin huod was about twin archers so i guess you didnt red the book but he wqs going to make evryone equalbut igeuss hed a been better off but thats the best he could do robin hood themselves had no flaws it was who ever made the people take care of each outher
2006-11-25 19:38:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on how rich and poor the people were...
2006-11-30 16:52:48 · answer #9 · answered by neil 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
reminds me of the Monty Pyton sketch, Dennis Moore.
but on would have to steal an awful lot to distribut to any number of poor people for them to suddenly be "rich."
2006-11-25 19:21:01 · answer #10 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he should have shot the sheriff in episode 1, but i was told there wouldnt be any more if he did?
2006-11-25 19:24:11 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋