来源：《Forty-Five Years of Luddite Behaviour》
The Luddite story contrasts with that of Robin Hood in several respects, but there are convergences too. Robin Hood flourished in medieval and feudal England, whereas Ned Ludd emerged in the era of industrialisation and the rise of factories. Both acted against those with power (old power in one case, new power in the other), adopting unlawful means for the alleviation of hardship. This acting in extremity and out of necessity was widely felt, by recipients of the Robin Hood story, to justify Robin’s violent robberies. But opinion as to whether Luddite damage and violence had moral justification was quite mixed at the time and has remained so since. The balance of sentiment has been condemnatory: the Luddites ‘went too far’, Robin didn’t. Criminal acts were done in both their names, but the law itself in both eras was in some respects arguably inadequate or worse: a framework for injustice or tyranny. The law was part of the problem, in need of wholesale reform, lacking the intrinsic humane authority to command the consent of the people so governed. If actions in modern Britain are severally interpreted as Luddite or Robin Hood–style activity, similarly the disturbing possibility is raised (in more minds when the action is called Robin Hood–like than Luddite) that the unfitness of current legal arrangements justifies extra-legal action.