These are excerpts taken from WAS ROBIN HOOD RIGHT? ETHICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE IN AMERICA TODAY
By Rev. Dr. Richard S. Gilbert, with my own remarks found in brackets.
For the full article, see: http://www.cedarlane.org/2005lecture.pdf

[The reason for submitting this is my personal offense at the New Age Christianity our nation is falling prey to, in which wealth and power are the new earthly goals, of which only the godly should benefit from, in which the poor and downtrodden are being pushed to the furthest limits of our society, labeled as outcasts and miscreants. Something is terribly wrong with these practices, which are supported by those in power in this nation, as more and more cuts are taken in Education, Head Start programs, Food Stamp and Medicaid/Medicare programs, and as homeless shelters are being closed.]

“Was Robin Hood right?” “ …was he morally right in his ethic of redistribution? How much do we deserve of this world’s goods - I mean really deserve? Is a winner-take-all society one we wish to have? In a competitive society, what do we do with the losers? To what are we entitled? How much is enough?”

[Robin Hood, a heroic archetype found in may cultures, found the suffering at the base of society to be caused by the excessive wastefulness and greed of those at the top of society. But what of the world’s religious founders? What of the world’s greatest philosophers? What do they have to say about wealth and the balance of society?]

"The Hindu Mahatma Gandhi said: "There is enough wealth to meet everyone's need, but not everyone's greed."

Guatama Buddha forsook his princely life to preach the problems of worldly desire. "Buddhist economics," based on "right livelihood," requires moderation, "to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption."

Confucius said, "To centralize wealth is to disperse the people; to distribute wealth is to collect the people."

In the Greek humanist tradition great gaps between rich and poor were felt to be unhealthy for the polis, the city. [The polis was more than a city, it extended outside of the urban areas into the countryside which supported the population, as well as influenced life and politics in the urban centers.] Plato believed the wealth ration between the richest and poorest person in the ideal state should be 4-1. Aristotle believed it should be 5-1.

Plutarch wrote, "An imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of republics." [Are we not a republic?]

The Hebrew prophetic tradition is replete with condemnation of those who exploit the impoverished; Amos inveighed against "selling the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals."

Jesus says unequivocally, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God."

The Koran of Islam stresses solidarity, condemning hoarders of wealth and urging zakat, a minimal tax: "Wealth, justly earned, is to be regarded as a bounty from God and spent to redress imbalance."

In 1986 the United States Catholic Bishops concluded that "Greed is the most evident form of moral underdevelopment."

In sum, the predominant religious voices on economic justice speak of an "option for the poor," and condemn any “preference for the privileged.”

Clearly this religious outlook has not yet transformed the American economy.”

“...the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is barely holding its own. The richest 20% of U.S. families enjoy 50.1% of the national earned income, while the poorest 20% survives on 3.4%.…”

‘Some years ago while on a tent safari in Kenya we had a conversation with a young Anglo-Kenyan who had done a science internship in Philadelphia. How embarrassed we were as she remarked how surprised she was at how Third World parts of Philadelphia were.”

[This statement makes me think of how much more beneficial it is to live in the United States for our nation’s poorest, if they are able to make it in to a Soup Kitchen, and a homeless shelter, if it’s not full. And if so, that violence will not erupt, and when they wake in the morning they still have their meager belongings. Because in this nation, there are meals. In this nation, there is shelter. If there is room. In some nations, there are no meals to be had, and there is no shelter but what nature offers, if any. But there could be more services available to our nations poorest, but we deny them of it. We deny them of the tools they need to rebuild their lives with pride and dignity, such as free mental, medical and mental health. T&C]

[What would Plato and Aristotle say? What would Jesus do?"]

[Are there solutions to these problems. Were Plato and Aristotle, philosophers from ages ago, that still have the respect and admiration of those living today, right? Is there a solution, but greed causes it to remain out of our grasp? What would the world be like if money for medication was not a concern? What would the world be like if everyone had enough food to eat? What would the world be like if everyone was literate? What if we placed a higher value on life than on money? Would money take care of these problems and give us a chance to see if the world be a better place, a healthier place, a peaceful place? Or are the world‘s greatest religious leaders wrong and personal wealth is the highest goal for humanity.]

“Was Robin Hood right? As for his ends, that vastly unequal resources were wrong and a more equitable society right, yes. As for his means, they leave much to be desired. But surely, in a democratic society we have the appropriate means to create that economic community envisioned by all the great prophets of the human spirit over the ages. Building that society is not so much a matter of resources; it is a question of will. As one wag said, “It’s easier to fit through they eye of a camel than be needled into the Kingdom of Heaven.” ”

Bah, Jesus was no pinko commie! We all know he was a compassionate conservative who's philosophy the Republican Party has taken to heart! Capitalism! Yee Hah!

On a more serious note, I'm not sure how one can quote philosophers on wealth distribution and leave out Marx. Why the exclusion?

Marx wasn't included in the article I was working with.

I totally agree with the OP but must also point out that these great philosophers (including Karl) didn't have the industrial revolution and the great wealth needed to achieve it's fledgling goals. To say that the wealth distribution now should be anywhere near five to one is not realistic. In a world where the division is probably closer to a million to one, in some cases, it is a hard sell to convince anyone with an acumulated wealth that there should be more taxes beiing paid by the rich than the poor.
Not to mention, who's going to impliment anything like this? Not our Government, thats for sure. Rich men, with their best interests at heart, run this country.
Gandhi's quote said it best:
"There is enough wealth to meet everyone's need, but not everyone's greed."

I think the first step is doing away with lobbiests, once and for all.
It should then be made law that no one that makes over $150,000 can run for office. Break up both parties and only allow independents. Vote first at the local level, then the state and then at the national level. National candidates should be allowed only so much air time each, with no mudslinging. The air time should be donated by the media. The actual jobs, in government, shouldn't pay huge sums of money. We need honest elected officials that will look out for the people, and our world, without figuring in their stocks first.

The people who are most upset about the uneven distribution of wealth are those with very little wealth to begin with (myself included).

Don't include me in that statement.

I am most upset at the fact many of those touting these big bank accounts today stole the money they have from others. Including people like myself, the federal coifers and trust funds of millions of people who placed their money into funds where others could use this money to build housing units, commercial buildings, start new companies, and help people have property ownership such as owning their own homes.

I could care less how much money anyone has if they recieve it in a legitimate manner. The fact is many out there today with this ill gotten wealth have not. Much of their wealth came from the stripping of others by illegal and illegitimate means. Paying off their cronies so they could keep going and strip the treasury and wealth of the United States while the gate keepers of justice turned their heads and looked the other way.

Well, I never gave a crap about being wealthy. I still don't. Having enough money to where I don't have to sweat bullets wondering if my most basic bills can be covered would be nice... but heck, I'm getting to that point and should be able to acheive that goal in a few months' time.

(I'm still recovering from losing a good job about four years ago.. .long story.)


But it's true that all the great Prophets and sages have warned against exessive wealth and its effect on the spirit.

The wealth of the world is controlled by a handful of people.

If so be the case. Then that handful needs to get a line on the corruption they have bred.

The thing that really ticks me off is we have enough food for everyone on this planet, so starvation is an unnecessary "evil" that we could solve if we wanted to. Greed is what stands in the way of this, and it always has.