Adrian Vance refers to the cliche of Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. So tired of this rampaging falsehood. Of course it's most easy for a writer to trot out this cliche and make the point easily for the readers, but it's a dangerous shortcut. That lie builds the socialist dream sequence that the rich don't deserve anything they have, the poor are far more deserving, and forced redistribution will save the day.
That trick never works!
Ignore whether Robin Hood existed. Ignore the truth of the legend built up over centuries. Pay attention to the basic ideas. Prince John usurped his brother, Richard the Lionheart, who abandoned his country more than once to fight during the Crusades. To support his desires, he taxed and taxed, and then taxed some more. He took away from the nobles their lands, from which they derived their income. For now, let's not quibble how they got that income. Either they owned the land or they didn't. The proof of their discontent was what? Oh, yeah. That they eventually got together and forced John to sign that Magna Carta. We celebrate that and therefore celebrate them and vilify John's behavior. John stole from the nobles and the people, who were dependent on the nobles favors. We don't have to argue at this time whether that was right or wrong. That was their lives at that time. John stole from the people.
As the legend goes, Robin Hood, generally considered to be a noble, probably Robert of Locksley, had his lands confiscated by John. John used them or gave them to his favored sycophants, as he had done with many others confiscations. If a thief steals from you and you take it back are you a thief? He didn't steal from the rich. Any nobles or serfs who John hadn't taxed into oblivion were in hiding or just around the corner from John's attention. Only John's sycophants were rich. Robin Hood recovered as much of the stolen goods and rights to live as he could manage. That he gave those to the poor and newly impoverished -- nobles or serfs -- was not an act of socialist theft but an act of rebellion against tyranny.
As our ancestors rebelled all those decades ago.
Adrian also refers to Thomas Edison:
That trick never works!
Ignore whether Robin Hood existed. Ignore the truth of the legend built up over centuries. Pay attention to the basic ideas. Prince John usurped his brother, Richard the Lionheart, who abandoned his country more than once to fight during the Crusades. To support his desires, he taxed and taxed, and then taxed some more. He took away from the nobles their lands, from which they derived their income. For now, let's not quibble how they got that income. Either they owned the land or they didn't. The proof of their discontent was what? Oh, yeah. That they eventually got together and forced John to sign that Magna Carta. We celebrate that and therefore celebrate them and vilify John's behavior. John stole from the nobles and the people, who were dependent on the nobles favors. We don't have to argue at this time whether that was right or wrong. That was their lives at that time. John stole from the people.
As the legend goes, Robin Hood, generally considered to be a noble, probably Robert of Locksley, had his lands confiscated by John. John used them or gave them to his favored sycophants, as he had done with many others confiscations. If a thief steals from you and you take it back are you a thief? He didn't steal from the rich. Any nobles or serfs who John hadn't taxed into oblivion were in hiding or just around the corner from John's attention. Only John's sycophants were rich. Robin Hood recovered as much of the stolen goods and rights to live as he could manage. That he gave those to the poor and newly impoverished -- nobles or serfs -- was not an act of socialist theft but an act of rebellion against tyranny.
As our ancestors rebelled all those decades ago.
Adrian also refers to Thomas Edison:
At the height of his career Thomas Edison had to do 1,200 experiments to invent the lead-acid battery now in every automobile. He refused to give up. Ironically if he had known of the Electromotive Series Table in chemistry and physics he could have done the whole thing in a few days. Knowledge is power, but it is the dream that drives it.
As far as I can tell, Edison invented the Nickel-Iron (Ni-Fe) battery to replace the lead-acid battery. Interestingly, according to his papers it took over 10,000 experiments to develop one of his battery types. But, the key note Adrian tries to get across is, of course, "Knowledge is power." Nikola Tesla was the theoretician. He worked for Edison for a short time, but they didn't get along well. When Tesla left and became successful due to his greater knowledge, Edison tried to destroy him. Tesla was the inventor of the modern age. Edison had great contributions, most importantly his development of the industrial laboratory. He got credit for all the work done by his employees. Edison did not do everything directly. Edison was the tinkerer, coming up with numerous variations. Tesla was the theoretician who could make or improve everything electrical and electronic that we take advantage of today.