Start with the wiki article.
Humour the possibility.
I'm enjoying the analysis of folklore, but I don't think it's a fair assessment to say Robin Hood was libertarian unless you're making the argument that property only belongs to someone if they're able to defend it.
Libertarians would argue that property belongs to whoever first claims that property, and so even though it stretches that argument somewhat - because it would be claiming an unknown quantity of deer - there's no reason why a king couldn't claim every one, especially if they were on land that also broadly belonged to the kingdom.
As far as taking money from clerics, or whoever, their money belonged to them. Just because someone lies about not having money to give away, doesn't mean that money belongs to them any less. He convinced them that their guilt justified the theft.
The Robin Hood you describe is a power-tripping anarchist, more than he is a libertarian.
Most of the world's problems could be solved if everyone just accepted that it's Current Year.
You're not wrong, but taboos will always be appealing. While I generally avoid referring to religion for factual information, they understand this innate desire for humans to be tempted by the things they know are unwise to do.
Realistically, because humans will always inevitably rebel, even if society entirely flipped to one where the nuclear family was done away with, eventually people would reject that norm, and go back to the taboo of monogamy.
I really hope this is all just a stupid act the US is putting on to make undoing their previous deepstate messing look like a naturally-occuring set of events that lead to withdrawal. I'd prefer to hear them say, "we intentionally messed with foreign countries and had them attack US targets for our own political benefit", but I'll reluctantly accept anything that leads to foreign intervention being ceased.
All groups are comprised of people with opposing opinions, because groups are made up of individuals. Even "the powers that be"/"the illuminati"/etc, will inevitably fracture over individual preferences, which is why intelligence agencies usually end up at war one-another.
Realistically it's concerning, but it was equally hilarious to watch that black woman spouting off what could have easily come from 4chan's resident Hitler worshippers. Really quite embarrassing.
"Gender" is still a corruption of "personality", and does not belong in the English language. Whether intentionally, or by pure stupidity, it exists as nothing more than a political weapon.
Damn it, I got baited into watching a book review.
"Without limiting the forgoing, you agree not to:
use the Services in any way that abuses, defames, stalks, annoys, threatens, harasses or violates the rights of privacy, publicity, intellectual property or other legal rights of a person or entity (now or hereafter recognized) or which encourages conduct which would violate any law or give rise to civil or criminal liability or post, publish, transmit, distribute, disseminate or upload any inappropriate, infringing, defamatory, profane, indecent, obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent or illegal/unlawful material or matters, including, without limitation, information, topics, names or other material;"
Is hypocrisy a virtue?
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice? No. Fuck off Change Man. Only an idiot would fail to recognise this damage control.