| | Phil and Lindsay,
The point I was trying to get at is this: The socialists of today regard him as a hero. They don't say he was a socialist, which would be just as pointless as calling him a libertarian (because modern political theory just wasn't around at that time), but they do give him a very sympathetic interpretation. However, my reading of the facts is that the primary impetus for Glyn Dwr to lead the rebellion was the blatant violation of his property rights and the failure of the state to remedy the situation. Much of the wider discontent in Wales stemmed from high taxation and inequality under the law. Socialists are in fact in favour of both violating property rights and high taxation, and in certain circumstances of inequality under the law. Precisely the things Glyn Dwr was fighting against! Precisely the things today's libertarians are fighting against!
Its a bit like the situation with Robin Hood - he's seen as a sort of "proto-socialist", robbing the rich and giving to the poor. As I believe Rand herself, or perhaps another Objectivist, pointed out, look at the facts and he was actually robbing the government and giving back to the oppressed taxpayers. So, do we abandon figures like these to the prevailing socialist "interpretations"? Or do we point out the true facts and the inconsistencies with current socialist doctrine?
Btw to answer Lindsay's other questions, as far as I know, Castro only praised Glyn Dwr's military tactics during the revolution. I've no idea if Saddam Hussein ever mentioned him. As to Phil's comment about him being an aristocratic landowner, that's like saying that Jefferson can't be a hero because he owned slaves.
MH
(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 7/28, 6:23am)
|
|
