The morality of Robin Hood isn't that he stole from the rich to give to the poor, but that he stole from a tyrannical kleptocracy in order to provide for those they oppressed.
Fortunately, now that we have escaped the travails of medieval feudalism, we empower a plurality of individuals to make decisions over economic regulation. This is called democracy, and it is a good and moral thing.
Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. For example, not Hamilton Nolan of the news outlet Splinter. Writing on Monday, Nolan declared that "It is time for polite, respectable, rational people to start saying what has become painfully obvious: It is time to stop respecting the rich and start stealing from them. In earnest."
Yes, you read that quote correctly. A literal and unapologetic incitement to crime.
Nolan explains that the moral foundation for thievery is self-evident: It's capitalism, stupid. More precisely, this "very specific economic system that encourages the accumulation of great wealth among a tiny portion of the population," Nolan says, is "to the detriment of the vast majority of people. Our political and business leaders have chosen to embrace a system that favors capital over labor."
Neglecting that human capital is actually representative of "labor," and that capitalism has done far more than any other economic system to raise people out of poverty, Nolan endorses socialism (one of history's most immoral and idiotic ideologies). In flowing vein, Nolan argues that democracy is no longer up to the task of effecting real change.
"Ideally, in a democracy, elected leaders reflecting the interests of the people would pass taxes and regulations to reverse the growing inequality here. For that to happen, we would need to end gerrymandering and reform campaign finance and probably abolish the Senate the Electoral College, and that’s just for starters."
A simpler, more honest Nolan might have said: "Because most Americans disagree with me, democracy is intrinsically immoral."
But what means of action does the budding revolutionary propose? Well, for a few, he wants "A large-scale online attack against the holdings of the very rich; yachts sunk in harbors; unoccupied vacation homes in the Hamptons mysteriously burned to the ground. Sotheby’s auctions swarmed by vandals, Art Basel attacked by spray-paint wielding mobs, protests on the doorsteps of right-wing think tanks, venomous words directed at millionaires as they dine in fancy restaurants."
This is justified because the aforementioned have lived "A life spent screwing the little people," and it is possible because the public identity of American billionaires means that "It is not hard to put together a list of those who should be targeted."
There's not really that much to say about Nolan's viewpoint except for this: It is immoral, anti-democratic, and if ever pursued, would rightly lead to lengthy prison sentences for all involved. That, and the possibility of homeowners introducing Nolan and his sympathizers to the power of the Second Amendment.
