Robin Hood was a socialist

http://perrinelson.com/2007/6/21/828.aspx
by Perry Nelson
Published Thu, Jun 21 2007

Think about that for a minute. "Rob from the rich and give to the poor." Isn't that one of the primary socialist and modern day liberal policies?
Today, as I was driving to work I happened to fall behind a woman with a lot of bumper stickers on her car. Before I say more, take a guess as to the general message of those bumper stickers.
Probably the two most prominent messages plastered onto the back of her car were "Tax the rich. Now!" and "Social Justice. Now!". Another one said "Endless this War". Three guesses as to what was her likely choice for how to end the war. I'm willing to bet that "achieving victory" wasn't on the list.
Yet another bumper sticker on this woman's car proclaimed the slogan "Catholics for Kerry". I assume this was a reference to the Catholic church's position regarding the pro-abortion positions held by many politicians that were touting their Catholicism.
Yes, I mean pro-abortion and not pro-choice. "Pro-choice" is a euphemism designed to mislead the electorate into thinking that the issue is all about a woman's "right to choose", when it's really about promoting abortion as a way to escape the consequences of licentious sexual behavior. If this were truly about "choice" then we'd see more "pro-choice" people promoting the "choice" of abstinence, but what they really promote is free access to abortion with no restraints whatsoever.
I'm sure you can guess where this woman's politics lie. It's obvious to me at least.
Come to think of it, have you ever seen a conservative plaster their car with that many bumper stickers? Oh sure, I've seen lots of conservatives with bumper stickers. Usually it's only one, or at the most two. They carry messages like "Support our Troops" or a simple "W 04". But you don't really (at least I don't) see a lot of conservatives with any bumper stickers, let alone plastering the entire back end of their car with them.
Listening to the radio this morning, as I was driving to work, I was treated with the words of Michael Moore on his new documentary "Sicko". Here we are again with another socialist trying to change the perception of his policies by changing the terms used. Michael Moore believes that we shouldn't call socialized medicine "socialized medicine". Instead he thinks we should call it "Christianized medicine".
Without actually having a transcript of his comments before me, I can only paraphrase what he had to say, but he based his arguments on his interpretation of the words of Jesus regarding the poor. In Matthew 25 (I'm not sure what passages Michael Moore was quoting, but this is close to what I heard) we can find this...
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: 42for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me. 46And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.
This is probably the basis for Michael Moore's idea that "socialized" or socialist medicine should be called "Christianized medicine". It certainly seems to be the basis for the bumper sticker slogan "Social Justice. Now!" that I saw earlier today. In fact, it's probably the basis of a lot of today's liberalism and socialism.
But here, just as with the abortion debate we see the socialist left trying to make their policies more palatable by changing the words they use to describe them. By framing the debate over socialized medicine in these terms, Michael Moore is trying to make anyone that objects to socialist policies appear to be un-Christian. If you're not in favor of government regulated socialized medicine — why — you must not be a Christian, or at the very least you must be a hypocrite.
In fact this very line of reasoning is used by the left anywhere conservatives resist their socialist agenda. If a conservative speaks out against "affirmative action", expressing a desire that we stop using race as the basis for decisions, expressing a desire to not even take into account a person's race at all, why that conservative must be a racist. If a conservative speaks out against government funded abortions, why that conservative must be seeking to suppress the rights of women.
Robin Hood is considered to have been a great hero. The fact that he stole from the rich to give to the poor is touted as one of his finer characteristics. I think that this is one of the dividing lines between conservatives and liberals today.
Conservatives look at the words of Jesus quoted above and they interpret them in terms of personal responsibility. We see them as a call to personally take in the stranger, feed and clothe the poor, and minister to the sick and to prisoners. After all, these things have personal consequences. Salvation happens on an individual basis, not a societal basis.
Liberals look at these same words (when they allow religion into the conversation at all, and we'll assume that they do since Michael Moore has invoked them) and interpret them in terms of society's responsibility rather than personal responsibility. It seems to be the liberal belief that society's ills can best be ministered to by government.
So we've had a "war on poverty" for decades. We've had social "safety net" programs and entitlement programs to meet the needs of the poor and the downtrodden. These programs have been in place for so long that you would think that they'd show some success by now.
It's my belief that these programs are doomed to fail. There is of course the argument that I've used for a long time now that when you reward a behavior you get more of it. When you reward the behaviors that lead to poverty with entitlement programs you reinforce those behaviors.
On the other hand, when you reward the behaviors that lead to prosperity, such as hard work, and sacrifice, then you reinforce those behaviors. This is why welfare reform that required welfare recipients to find work resulted in fewer people on the welfare roles.
There's another reason though that the war on poverty cannot be won. No matter how you approach it with solutions, you cannot eliminate poverty. To quote Michael Moore's new-found reference material (Matthew 26 this time)…
6Now when Jesus was come to Bethany and was at the house of Simon the Leper, 7a woman came to Him with a jar of very costly, sweet-scented ointment, which she poured over His head as He reclined at table. 8"Why such waste?" indignantly exclaimed the disciples; 9"for this might have been sold for a considerable sum, and the money given to the poor." 10But Jesus heard it, and said to them, "Why are you vexing her? For she has done a most gracious act towards me. 11The poor you always have with you, but me you have not always.
Simply put, the poor will always be there, and devotion to Christ is more important. This doesn't mean that an individual doesn't have a responsibility to help those less fortunate than himself. It just means that no amount of money thrown at the problem of poverty will ever solve it.
Socialists though seem to indignantly call out with the disciples "Why such waste?" when a rich man uses the money that is his own for his own purposes. "For this might have been sold for a considerable sum, and the money given to the poor."
It's this attitude that vexes me about the modern left. It's what vexes me about Robin Hood. They appear to believe that it's acceptable to take from "the rich" to give to "the poor". Robin Hood is a hero to many for precisely this sort of behavior. It's still theft.
15Thou shalt not steal.
That's the 8th commandment, from Exodus 20. Whatever else Robin Hood might have been, he was a thief. That he gave the things he stole to the poor doesn't change that. Nothing in Judaism or Christianity permits theft, even to give to the poor. It's a socialist notion that this form of theft is a justifiable act.
The two bumper stickers I noted today read "Tax the Rich. Now!" and "Social Justice. Now!". They epitomize the Robin Hood mentality. They play upon class envy.
I have to ask though: Is it "social justice" to forcibly take the things that a man has earned through hard work and toil to give them to someone else that has not worked and toiled to earn them? Liberals claim that we all have a "right" to health care. Does that mean that we have a "right" to take away another man's possessions as well? Does it mean that we have a "right" to demand that a doctor give us his services without expectation of compensation? Is that truly "justice"? Or as Michael Moore describes it, is that "Christian"?
I don't think so. In the end, I think its nothing more nor less than communism. Whether you're on the left or the right that's an assault on your freedoms. Lets turn now to the Communist Manifesto to conclude our analysis.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
Take private property from the "rich" through taxation to distribute it through the hand of the state to the poor. "Steal from the rich and give to the poor".
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
Except in the case of Michael Moore's "Christianized medicine" it actually provides every man the power to subjugate the labor of medical practitioners by means of such appropriations.
"Rob from the rich and give to the poor." That was Robin Hood's motto. "Tax the Rich. Now!" "Social Justice. Now!" A pair of bumper sticker slogans that epitomize the Robin Hood mentality of the modern left. To drive it home, this is one of the primary measures listed that are used to accomplish the Communist revolution:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Communism and mass slavery are the end of all liberal policies. That may not be their intent, but that will be the effect of their methods. Modern day liberals tend toward these things out of good motivations and intentions. The end result of these policies though is the greatest social injustice of all. Mass slavery. After all, let's not forget the one thing that the Communist revolution absolutely requires for Communism to produce a viable economy:
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
There's only one way to attain that particular measure — slavery. It's the abolition of all religious and economic freedom (which both happen to be stated goals of the Communists). It's not something I'm willing to accept.