[Vision2020] Re: Robin Hood
David M. Budge
dave at davebudge.com
Fri Feb 11 04:51:21 PST 2005
I think only the part about calling my psychiatrist and the part about
ketchup. But I'm not on my game right now, so I could be wrong.
db
Carl Westberg wrote:
> Was any of this covered in "Robin Hood, Men in
> Tights"?
>
>
>
> Carl Westberg Jr.
>
>> From: "David M. Budge" <dave at davebudge.com>
>> To: Joan Opyr <auntiestablishment at hotmail.com>
>> CC: Vision2020 Moscow <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: Robin Hood
>> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:01:56 +0000
>>
>> Joan,
>>
>> Thanks for refreshing my memory on the plot and character
>> development. There's just some major problems with your analogy i.e.
>> "(involuntary) corporate profit-sharing scheme".
>>
>> A) There were no "corporations" in 12th century England or private
>> property for that matter. All land was owned by the King and
>> franchised, if you will, to members of the realm (Dukes, Barons,
>> Lords, etc.), who "owned" no real property (real estate) either. The
>> land's productive proceeds, minus an allowance for a piggishly lavish
>> lifestyle, were ultimately due to the monarch. Accordingly, all
>> business was owned buy the state. We actually have some holdover to
>> that construct in Common Law called "escheatability" where one's
>> estate is remanded to the government if one has no heirs upon taking
>> the "big dirt nap."
>>
>> B) Historically, it was not just Prince John who placed an unfair
>> burden of taxation on the working stiffs, but King Richard as well.
>> In fact, the war in Normandy put such a financial burden on the crown
>> that a general protest by the nobility and serfdom alike caused the
>> birth of the Magna Carta, which provided for private property and
>> then some, in thirteen short years after the death of King Richard.
>> This, the first major step towards liberal democracy in England.
>>
>> C) If, in fact, we make allowances for your assertion that money was
>> returned to "ownership of the company by those who built the
>> company", in contemporary terms, you entirely discount for
>> ownership's risk of capital - which is no inconsequential building
>> block of any enterprise. Today, stealing from "Archer Daniels
>> Midlands, McDonalds, and Dell Computer moguls" would be stealing from
>> the likes of the millions of citizens who have a vested interest in
>> things like the California Public Employees Retirement System, etc.
>> That is not to say that modern corporate chiefs earn their egregious
>> salaries, but that is primarily caused by a lack of accountability
>> created, in large part, by tax incentives (now there's an oxymoron
>> for ya) that drive money to institutional money managers thereby
>> removing voting privileges of the actual "owners." But I've not the
>> time nor the inclination to begin that discussion in this writing.
>>
>> So, in fact, Robin was repatriating taxes, not ownership, as stealing
>> from any nobility was actually taking from the government. Taxes, I
>> might add, that stuffed the ruling class to obese proportions like
>> the retirement benefits that congress has voted for themselves in the
>> current era. (John Kerry wants to give us congress's health care
>> system, I'm hoping he'll give us his retirement plan - well except
>> for the ketchup loot from his beaudacious sugar mama of course.)
>>
>> Thinking about my little dear one. I will remain ever vigilant Joan,
>> but I worry much more about really hard "street literature", full of
>> impurities and historical reconstruction, like Katrina Vanden Houvel
>> at The Nation, Cornell West, and the really scary ghost of Stalin;
>> Noam Chomsky (hey, anybody who ever endorsed Pol Pot qualifies as
>> "really scary.")
>>
>> I too have little use for the modern GOP, but I've equally "little
>> use" for Democrats. Their party platform (with notable dessenters
>> like Barney Frank) has an official position against gay marriage
>> ironically via federalism and civil unions - endorses drug
>> interdiction programs that continue to fail ($20 Billion alone to
>> Columbia plus another $30 billion hidden in the Defense budget - we
>> can buy a sh_t load of ketchup with that dough) - the insanity of not
>> coming to grips that Social Security will ultimately have to be means
>> tested at a minimum, lest we hand to our heirs a stinking pile of
>> rotting economic fecal matter that they won't even be able to grow
>> mushrooms in - the insane changes at the FDA made by Clinton that
>> allows big pahrama to extend patents ad nausium with minor changes in
>> drug formulary thereby nullifying an otherwise reasonable system of
>> patent protection - the ridiculous entitlement of Medicare that sets
>> price controls thereby forcing higher prices and screwing the boots
>> off the uninsured, the working poor and the self-employed - the whole
>> damn notion of "hate crimes" legislation where the arbiters of
>> thought control will be determined by a tyranny of the majority - the
>> obnoxious push for federalizing the payroll of incompetent cretins
>> who perform proctological exams in search of box cutters every time
>> someone gets on an airplane (but I have a serious problem with that
>> entire bi-partisan body of law) - the continuous insufferable
>> conclusion that the law is not just for protecting me from getting
>> screwed but from being stupid as well (I contend that being stupid is
>> a constitutional right and is the underlayment of the entire Bill of
>> Rights) - and all the rest of the twaddle that implies that I don't
>> know whether to sh_t or go blind. And this is just the beginning.
>>
>> In fairness, I have an equally long list for the GOP, but I'm
>> thinking you're probably willing to wait for that. I say, as did
>> the the Queen of Hearts, "off with their heads!" I'm ecumenical that
>> way.
>>
>> Oops, I got a little screedy there. Must be the I.V. bee venom.
>>
>> Sorry, I'll return to my warm (but smarmy) self after the venom wears
>> off. Didn't mean to offend. Better call my psychiatrist, I've
>> forgotten my mantra...
>>
>> Dave Budge
>>
>>
>> Joan Opyr wrote:
>>
>>> Dave writes:
>>> "As for Robin Hood, the way I recall the story, Robin was compelled
>>> to retrieve money that had been taken by the tyrannical King through
>>> an unfair scheme of taxing the peasants. Fair Hood was not
>>> 'stealing from the rich and giving to the poor' but providing a
>>> significant tax rebate. Seems pretty libertarian to me."
>>> This is almost the plot, Dave. In fact, Prince John (would-be
>>> usurper of King Richard the Lionheart's throne) was collecting taxes
>>> from the poor to pay for an unpopular foreign war. He was not -- as
>>> he should have been -- mugging the rich, i.e., the land-grabbing
>>> Norman barons, the Sheriff of Nottingham, and Sir Hally Burton,
>>> war-monger to the stars. No -- Prince John was screwing the poor
>>> serfs in order to foster popularity among the barons so that he
>>> could hang onto Richard's throne when the true king returned (if he
>>> returned) from the Crusades. He was obliged to do this because he
>>> didn't have a Republican-packed Supreme Court on which to rely.
>>> Rather than providing "a significant tax rebate" to the serfs (who,
>>> today, might be called the working class), Robin Hood took the
>>> Pretty Boy Floyd route. He "reclaimed" and "redistributed" wealth
>>> from the Archer Daniels Midlands, McDonalds, and Dell Computer
>>> moguls of his day, and gave it to the workers. You might say that
>>> Robin Hood introduced the first (involuntary) corporate
>>> profit-sharing scheme: ownership of the company by those who built
>>> the company. There is, perhaps, something libertarian with a small
>>> "l" about that, but there is nothing conservative with a big "GOP"
>>> about it.
>>> [BTW, as my partner-in-crime Brother Carl will attest, I have a
>>> libertarian streak myself. It manifests itself not in aversion to
>>> taxes -- except for those used to pay for hopeless foreign
>>> excursions, so-called faith-based initiatives, and to foster the
>>> Bush definition of marriage -- but in a deep and abiding desire to
>>> be left the hell alone. That's why I moved to Idaho. I can live
>>> with small "l" libertarians; it's nosy Baptist hypocrite right-wing
>>> bedroom police self-righteous puritanical fundamentalist
>>> conservatives who get on my t-ts. But then you probably already
>>> knew that.]
>>> Dave continues:
>>>
>>> "I am fascinated by your notion of 'gateway literature' though.
>>> This might lead to really dodgy stuff like Adam Smith's The Wealth
>>> of Nations, or perhaps even (gasp!) Ayn Rand. What's next? I can
>>> see it now, having to put my poor dear into a twelve-step program to
>>> address her adrenaline addiction from reading post-modern economic
>>> philosophy. As my jewish friends would say 'Oy, what a shandre!'"
>>> Listen, Dave, I know your daughter is young, but you must sit her
>>> down immediately and have a serious talk with her about the dangers
>>> of sniffing Ayn Rand. One hit on the Fountainhead bong is all it
>>> takes for a good kid to go Natural Law. Soon, she'll be shooting up
>>> Atlas Shrugged, and then what? Milton Friedman tracks all up and
>>> down her arms. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, injected
>>> between her toes. And then . . . The National Review. That one
>>> goes up in the eyelids. Don't be meshuggeneh, Dave -- just say no.
>>> Parents: the anti-drug. Except that, in fact, we are like Halcion.
>>> Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
>>> PS: I do hope you're not reading that child The Miller's Tale. Or,
>>> worse yet, The Prioress's. For heaven's sake, start her out with
>>> something uplifting like The Pearl or John Bunyon's Pilgrim's
>>> Progress. Yes, of course, she'll be bored to tears, but isn't the
>>> idea of bed-time reading to put the child to sleep? BTW, she's not
>>> going to give a hoot about the cuckolding in the Miller's Tale --
>>> she's going to be mesmerized by Nicolas' letting "flee a fart." God
>>> knows I was, and I was sixteen when I first read it. Old enough not
>>> to be laughing at farts. Then again, I'm 38 now and still laughing,
>>> so . . .
>>> PPS: Is it possible that you're confusing Robin Hood with Monty
>>> Python's Dennis Moore?
>>> "He robs from the poor,
>>> And gives to the rich.
>>> Dennis Moore,
>>> Dennis Moore,
>>> Stupid b-tch."
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
>>> http://explorer.msn.com
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list