Robin Hood Defamed Again


Robin Hood Defamed Again
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com
Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s
The Libertarian Enterprise

It says here a Canadian outfit called “Adbusters” is persuading  its fellow parasites in the “Occupy” camps to demand the creation of a  “Robin Hood Tax”, to be levied on and collected from, er … Western Civilization.

To give you an idea of who and what these creatures are, they  generate print ads and TV spots, full of cute catchphrases and the  usual lies and distortions, attacking industrial capitalism, with an  emphasis (shades of Thorstein Veblen!) on their bitter hatred for  something they call “consumerism”, which can roughly be defined as the  heinous act of buying and enjoying something they dislike and don’t  approve of—except of course, if you do, they want a piece of the  action.

Despite the longtime left-wing bias of the mass media, apparently  nobody—newspapers, magazines, TV and radio networks—wants to run  Adbusters’ stuff. The group’s response is to sue these institutions,  although the only place they haven’t been thrown summarily out of  court is Canada—Moscow on the Northwest Passage—where the light  of the First Amendment was blocked out in 1815, and hasn’t shone there  since. Oh, and I forgot: it says here that CNN has aired some of their  stuff. It figures. Or maybe they just didn’t want their cars pooped  on.

As nearly as I understand it, if you were to buy bubblegum trading  cards featuring ball players, Playboy bunnies, or scenes from Mars  Attacks, that would be bad. But if they featured pictures of Paul  Erlich, Al Gore, or Ted Kaczynski, that would be all right. Or Rachel  Carson, who killed more people than the Unabomber ever dreamed of  killing.

Disgusted and repelled by greed (i.e., the unforgivably human  willingness to work hard to make a better life for yourself and for  your children), they want to make a fresh start for the human race, a  fresh start much like the fresh starts represented by their fellow  socialists Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedung, and Pol  Pot.

Yes, Virginia, Hitler was a socialist.

Socialism is not the deep metaphysical philosophy it pretends to  be; that part, socialists stole from Hegel. Socialism is not the warm,  fuzzy ethical philosophy it pretends to be; that part, socialists like  to claim they stole from Auguste Comte, but actually stole from Attila  the Hun; Socialism is not the noble, liberating political philosophy  it pretends to be; that part, socialists stole from Savonarola and  Robespierre.

Or Boss Tweed on PCP.

Once you boil away all of its high-sounding rationalizations,  socialism is only a lame attempt to make stealing appear respectable.  That’s all it ever was, all it is now, and all it ever will be. The  dismal fact that it has succeeded in taking in billions of gullible  cretins over the past ten generations—the same kind of cretins who  devoutly believe the Gospel of Global Warming—tells us more about a  majority of our fellow human beings than we ever really wanted to  know.

The essential doctrine of socialism, its very definition, is that  the wishes, hopes, fears, and above all, the rights of the individual,  in any and all cases, are less important than whatever the wishes,  hopes, fears, and above all, the rights of the group may be. Indeed,  the individual has no rights; only society has rights, hence the name,  socialism.

Socialism pops up in some funny places. When the City Fathers—Democrat  or Republican—steal your home or business to widen a road  or build a park, or simply to give it to some other business that will  probably pay higher taxes, that’s socialism. When the city, county,  state, or federal governments steal money from you, to wage insane  wars or finance the violation of your other rights, that’s socialism,  too.

They’re saying that the “good of society”—and, of course, they  get to define what “the good” consists of—outweighs any claim that  you may have to whatever it is you have earned or possess. That’s  socialism. This is a socialist country and it always has been. Exactly  like every other nation-state that has ever existed—or likely ever  will—it’s a kleptocracy, a culture based on theft. Only they call  it “paying your fair share”—and they get to define what that is,  too.

Naturally, everybody is equal after the Revolution—except some  special leaders who have special needs: offices, limousines, palaces,  private aircraft, country retreats, servants of various kinds. Here we  call them “fat-cats”; the Glorious People’s Republics called them the nomenklatura.

The so-called right, from Dick Cheney and his military-industrial  complex though to Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Pinochet is fully as  socialistic as Occupy Obsolescent Ideology. The difference is that the  bigwigs have already gotten theirs, many times over, while the plastic  proletariat in their protest pup-tents are still looking around for a  warm flat spot to attach their sucker-disks before they dig in for a  blood meal. Ironically, if America ever fell to a genuine revolution,  say like Castro’s (although it really hasn’t had to, has it?), history  clearly demonstrates that they and theirs would be the first to the  wall.

A word about Robin Hood. The left loves to think that he robbed  from the rich and gave the money to the poor. In a way, that’s true,  but that’s only half the story, and the least important half, at that.  If he’d just been a mugger, he’d probably never have made Marian. In  folklore and tradition, Robin Hood stole from tax collectorsand he  gave the money back (after a modest recovery fee) to the people who  were impoverished because it had been extorted from them. Robin Hood  did this, in folklore and tradition, because he himself had been  cheated out of his home, his lands, his titles, and his rights, by an  evil King (is there any other kind?) and the vile Sheriff Joe of  Nottingham.

This is the same King, by the way, who had to be broken by his own  knights and forced to sign the first bill of (some) rights, the Magna  Carta.

A tax—any tax—in Robin Hood’s name is an obscenity.

I have a better idea, instead. If we’re going to threaten each  other using government as a weapon, then I propose a tax on socialism.  Any time that anybody espouses some Draconian action on behalf of the  People, or for the Greater Good, they have to pay for it in cold, hard  cash.

They want to start with a 1 percent tax on rich people—meaning  anybody who actually produces some good or service in the free market  system.

I propose a 99 percent tax on collectivist assholes.

Do I hear a second?

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

About these ads

2 responses to “Robin Hood Defamed Again

  1. Second!

  2. Robin Hood, aka Sir Robin of Loxley, believed unfair taxes should be returned to the people. Or did I miss something here?