“Robin Hood WAS a thief.”
You beat me to it. I was about to post the exact words.
There are 2 different Robin Hood stories. The Hollywierd versaion and the original.
In the original, the King was using all the tax money to finance the war in the middle east. Most young and/or strong men were in the army in the middle east.
The sheriff of Nottingham had no access to the king’s taxes. So the sheriff of Nottingham illegally (against the orders of the King) seized the chickens, grain, silverware and other property of the middle class. (He would have stolen from the poor also. Except they had nothing worth stealing. They were poor.)
Robin Hood, his merry men and with Friar Tuck’s/Catholic church blessing, re-captured from the sheriff of Nottingham the stuff that the sheriff had illegally seized. Robin Hood returned the property to its rightful owner.
The story of Robin Hood is the story of private property protection and the limits of what the government can do.
Consider if the ATF/DEA/DHS were to seize fancy cars and homes for the personal use of themselves from innocent people not convicted of anything. Consider if the government were to seize private property for the good of the bureaucrats.