As I increase my list of examples to explain the benefits of capitalism vs. control societies, I just discovered a new miniseries produced by the BBC. Its a modern day rendition of Robin Hood. Its chock full of classic British dry wit humor and cheesy lines. The action is gripping, the stories are captivating, and you can tell the actors are having fun. If you are a fan of miniseries, I'd recommend picking up a copy from your local movie store or online.

When all is said and done, however, the story of Robin Hood provides perhaps the best insight into the principles of socialism vs. capitalism that is widely known by the average schmoe. This means that it is a good example to bring up whenengaged in an exchange of ideas, or a practical springboard for discussions. The new series is a veritable conservative lesson masquerading as entertainment... provided, of course, you have someone who can interpret the themes behind the story.

The plot of Robin Hood, for those who haven't seen Disney in a while: kind King Edward goes off to fight the Crusades, leaving wicked Prince John to rule England. He appoints a new Sheriff in Nottinghamshire, who rules with an iron hand. Robin Hood opposes him by stealing from the Sheriff's lords and distributing the gold to the poor. As an outlaw, he has to hide in Sherwood Forest to avoid capture, so that he and his men, who are merry, whatever that means, can continue to rob the rich to give to the poor. And he usually does some cool stuff with a bow and arrow.

On the surface, Robin Hood seems the socialist's dream story: appealing to even young children, while extolling the virtues of robbing from the rich to give to the poor. What can be more noble than that? Nobody actually wants anyone else to be poor, and if those who have the means don't charitably give their money to the poor, then it is nothing short of heroics to force them to do it. Theft is justified for the benefit of the hopeless.

Is Robin hood good? My initial impression, (after overcoming my preliminary initial impression of: "of course he is good. He's the good guy, isn't he?") was that Robin Hood was nothing short of a socialist thought experimenter's dream come true. Everyone knows the story, and a single question can spark the most interesting discussions, namely, is it moral to rob from the rich and give to the poor?

There are indeed instances where it is indeed moral. For those living in a feudal society, such as the setting of Robin Hood, to rob from the rich and give to the poor is absolutely moral. Because in that society, the man gets rich off of the essential slave labor of the peasant. If an individual does not have the right to own private property, he cannot become rich. Those who can are lords, those who have property rights, and they cannot become rich except at the expense of another. Thus, a peasant in a feudal society cannot enjoy the fruits of his own labors. To not be able to enjoy fruits of your laber is to be a slave. The labor motive in such a society is avoiding punishment, not any economic advancement. Is it moral to rob from a slave owner to give to his slaves? It is nothing less than giving the proper fruits of their labor.

Verdict: To steal from the rich is justified, only when certain conditions are met. Liberal socialists today tend to ignore the fact that those conditions do not exist in our society, and instead appeal to the emotion that arises in all decent people who see those less blessed.

The conditions that we live in today, however, are different. In a free market, where, except for those who get rich through crime (such as mobsters), everyone gains his money by voluntary exchange between two parties for mutual benefit. Consider: without commiting crimes, how do you recieve or spend money in our society? Only voluntarily. If you think your employer does not pay you what you are worth, you will leave to find someone who does. Of course, your own estimation may be far less than what you are actually worth, and you such lessons are a secondary benefit of the free market. If your employer thinks you are not worth what he is paying you, he will terminate the employment. Nobody works in America who doesn't do so voluntarily. A worker considers his time less valuable than the money he gets in exchange for it, and thus his employer serves him by wages. He likewise serves his employer by working, which the employer values more than the money he must pay.

Likewise, to purchase a service or a product is simply the voluntary exchange of wealth (or stored labor that you earned in employment) for said product or service. If you purchase a new car, you consider the car worth more than the money in your bank account. If you purchase a burger at the drive-through, you value the food more than the money in the bank. Likewise for housing, clothing, iPods, etc... anything you buy is a voluntary exchange that you value more than the money. Conversely, the person selling the product or service considers it worth less than the money, and is thus willing part with it.

All voluntary, all done as a service to others. In other words, to steal from a rich man in today's society to give to the poor, you are punishing a man for helping his neighbor, and giving it to someone who helps his neighbor less.

Verdict: to rob from the rich to give to the poor in a society with property rights and freedom is immoral.

You cannot find an example of a legal transaction in America that does not qualify as a voluntary exchange between two parties for mutual benefit.

Except, of course, taxation. It is not voluntary, because if you don't volunteer, you are forcefully removed from your possesions or imprisoned.

Which brings me back to the new BBC series. For the first time in watching a Robin Hood rendition, I realized that the "rich" that Robin was stealing from were not mere feudal lords oppressing the lowly peasant, but it was the Government. The taxation by the Sheriff is what caused the poverty, it is what made him the "bad guy." Robin stole from the Government that had denied the freedom to its citizens, and gave it to the poor so that they could pay for food, clothing, shelter, and of course, the taxes.

Makes one wonder... was Robin Hood a hero to be adored, or a criminal to be shunned?