Actually, Ragnar does Robin Hood a minor injustice. But he makes up for it by imitating Robin Hood.

The real Robin Hood (likely Sir Robin of Loxley) championed those whom King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham had robbed, through unjust taxes and civil asset forfeiture (or its equivalent). Does that not sound exactly like the mission Ragnar set for himself? The problem, and the source of the confusion, was this: in Robin Hood's day, wealthy people were robbing the poor. The only thing that's changed today is that powerful politicians, acting ostensibly on behalf of the poor, are robbing those who have wealth but lack connections. The modern King Johns and Sheriffs of Nottingham have misappropriated the Robin Hood symbol for themselves. Ragnar is the appropriate Robin Hood for our modern age.

How about Bush with the weapons of mass destruction...

My stolen tax money has already been spent by the establishment. If I find some way to steal tax money back, it would be from other people's stolen tax money. No?

Its a novel. Even she said that there was objection to what Ragnar did among the gulchers. It would be very difficult to capture a ship going to some socialist country, and actually returning the value of the shipments to the people who were stolen from.

There is truth to this. It started with the rich exploiting the poor and not accepting THEIR rights. In a totally free market society, the wealthy land owners wouldnt have gotten away with being so rich (at least for very long).

Naturally, looters can't stand to be exposed, so they change history. England's monarch, Lincoln, Federal Reserve Bank, FDR, BATF, Hillary.

The tale of Robin Hood is actually a tale of extremes wherein neither side embodies proper principles. On the one side you have the repressive government which taxes at a whim and on the other you have the people's rebellion. Historically, the notion of Prince John sprang from the time of the the Crusades when the Normans (French) ruled England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_K.... John's brother Richard was away fighting the Crusades and John was tasked with raising money to fund those military operations. But John's ham-handed approaches and the ever-increasing monetary demands made for a bad combination on top of a class of peasants already chafing from foreign rule. On top of that John's rule was losing on the home front to invaders much closer to home and he was at odds with the clergy at the time, which made him generally loathed by just about everyone.

On the other side you have "Robin of Locksley" who becomes Robin the Hood (Hood meaning outlaw) after he is declared rogue and his title and land stripped for defying John. He is romanticized in folklore for restoring to the people what was once theirs and leading a revolt which some claim ended with the signing of the Magna Carta. But he also represents a dangerous element of active rebellion that can quickly turn into mob rule.

Exactly. If you read the full speech, Rand makes it clear that the problem is not what Robin Hood actually did (or was said to have done), but what he has come to symbolize.

I haven't run into any...we're left with her writings to decipher I guess.

The symbol, (Robin Hood) was used (stolen) by the liberal theology to promote altruism. Ayn Rand, through Ragnar's voice, is simply exposing the fallacy. Actual history has nothing to do with it.

Ragnar was doing the same thing as Robin Hood. Stealing from looters and returning the proceeds to those it was looted from. Ragnar's friends were more advanced producers, but I think Rand's (through Ragnar's speech) assumptions may lack support in historical reality. Is there any detail on Rand's research into the history?

Ah, but the truth of the matter is that Robin hood stole from those in power, the government as it were, and gave back to the people. Wealthy land owners were not value creators nor producers and neither were kings nor sheriffs.

If one takes the misguided liberal view then yes, it was about needs.

The people were already value creators as in: butchers, bakers and candle stick makers, fleeced by those that could not otherwise create value.

Possibly, unless you oppose the so-called divine right of kings and take the view that power granted by God to a ruthless monarch is a form of slavery deserving of resistance and revolution. Is it looting to steal from the looter? Not according to Ragnar Danneskjöld.