Sunday, December 19, 2010

Robin Hood is Evil!!??

This excerpt is taken from "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand's radical novel.

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."

Criticism : I am unable to digest how Ragnar is different from Robin Hood in any sense. Ragnar maintains an account for all of "Rand's" heroes so that they he could give them their due - which was taken away by the "looters". Wasn't Robin Hood the same? He took away from rich nobles to give the peasants their due. The peasants had in fact, worked under a nobility which had taken away everything from them. According to Rand's Objectivist philosophy, it is the peasants who actually deserved all the material wealth as they were the ones who did the work. I see a contradiction here, in her criticism of Robin Hood. I may be wrong in my criticism and would like anyone who has read my blog as well as "Atlas Shrugged" to point out any flaw in my argument. I need this because I am trying to evaluate "Objectivism" to see if its a full-fledged philosophy. Any Objectivists reading this blog, please note that the above criticism is a subjective evaluation which may be wrong and any abusive or forceful, irrational language on my blog will not be paid attention to.