The Corruption of the Jedi
The Corruption of the Jedi by Adam Young- Mises Institute
The Empire rose not just through the treachery and deceit of the Sith, after all treachery and deceit are the ways of the Dark Side, but through the treachery and deceit of the Jedi, who betrayed their Code and deceived themselves that in this extraordinary case, the ends do justify the means…
As George Lucas put it: ‘Power corrupts, and when you’re in charge, you start doing things that you think are right, but they’re actually not’…
The hidden lesson of Episode III is that the Dark Side triumphs in societies when Good adopts its methods. When those who claim to be the guardians of good against the threat of evil adopt the methods of evil, what distinguishes them from evil? How are they any different?
In the end, truth and justice are sacrificed to ambition. If good and evil uses identical methods and the justifications of expediency, they become mere factions instead of opposites, allied together in a common war against liberty. May this serve as a warning to all who see in emergency circumstances a reason to betray principles and adopt the methods of the Dark Side. In the name of doing good, one only becomes part of the problem, no matter how many excuses seem to be readily at hand.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am a big geek and it was only a matter of time before I posted about Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. However, this post is relevant to what I usually discuss here in the Great Oak Forest. It is about trying to achieve good through evil methods.
Adam Young points out that in Revenge of the Sith, the Jedi failed when they adopted the methods of the Sith. He argues that the Jedi tried to take matters in their own hands disregarding due process and justice. They thought they were acting in the best interest of society, but they became despots.
Adam Young is correct in everything he says except that the Jedi became despots much earlier. The Jedi betrayed their code and sealed their fate at the end of Episode II: Attack of the Clones, when they agreed to fight against the Separatists as generals for the “Grand Army of the Republic.” What did they hope to accomplish by forcing people to remain members of a republic they hoped to leave? A Jedi victory in war could only produce tyranny and resentment.
Anakin Skywalker suffers the physical and psychological scares of the Jedi’s betrayal. He came of age while fighting a war, so he saw things nobody should ever see. Anakin had to rationalize his and the Jedi’s actions by concluding that the Republic was not merely a means to an end that includes liberty and justice. Instead, Anakin concluded that the Republic was an end in itself. No wonder he eventually sided with Palpatine, who advocated the idea of a unified republic at any cost. When Anakin became Darth Vader, he was convinced that he was acting in the best interests of society.
Can we accomplish good by committing evil? No, evil will always produce more evil. Evil warps our priorities and judgment. Evil methods harm the innocent people we are trying to help. When they do not show appreciation for our actions, we become defensive. As a result, we create more resentment and anger, which leads to more conflict and evil. Every problem we solve with evil methods produces more problems.
Can we gain liberty through violence? No, violence leads to more violence and misery. Look at our own history, how one war has led to another and to another. World War I led us to World War II, which led us to the Cold War and now to fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq. Remember, we once supported, supplied, and trained Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, because they were our allies against the USSR. Which of our allies today will be our enemies tomorrow?
Can we achieve social justice by stealing property from one group of individuals through taxes and eminent domain, and redistributing it to another? No, the theft and redistribution of property creates an adversarial relationship between different people. Some people develop a sense of entitlement and class envy, so instead of trying to improve their situation they wallow in self-pity and bitterness. Others resent losing their hard earned money and view less fortunate people as a drag on society. They devise stricter social controls that will “cure” the poor of their “vices.” The two groups no longer view each other as neighbors; instead, they blame each other for the loss of liberty and dignity. At the same time, people in power fight over their piece of the pie and dish out other people’s money to their friends. One evil policy leads directly to another.
The Empire rose not just through the treachery and deceit of the Sith, after all treachery and deceit are the ways of the Dark Side, but through the treachery and deceit of the Jedi, who betrayed their Code and deceived themselves that in this extraordinary case, the ends do justify the means…
As George Lucas put it: ‘Power corrupts, and when you’re in charge, you start doing things that you think are right, but they’re actually not’…
The hidden lesson of Episode III is that the Dark Side triumphs in societies when Good adopts its methods. When those who claim to be the guardians of good against the threat of evil adopt the methods of evil, what distinguishes them from evil? How are they any different?
In the end, truth and justice are sacrificed to ambition. If good and evil uses identical methods and the justifications of expediency, they become mere factions instead of opposites, allied together in a common war against liberty. May this serve as a warning to all who see in emergency circumstances a reason to betray principles and adopt the methods of the Dark Side. In the name of doing good, one only becomes part of the problem, no matter how many excuses seem to be readily at hand.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am a big geek and it was only a matter of time before I posted about Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. However, this post is relevant to what I usually discuss here in the Great Oak Forest. It is about trying to achieve good through evil methods.
Adam Young points out that in Revenge of the Sith, the Jedi failed when they adopted the methods of the Sith. He argues that the Jedi tried to take matters in their own hands disregarding due process and justice. They thought they were acting in the best interest of society, but they became despots.
Adam Young is correct in everything he says except that the Jedi became despots much earlier. The Jedi betrayed their code and sealed their fate at the end of Episode II: Attack of the Clones, when they agreed to fight against the Separatists as generals for the “Grand Army of the Republic.” What did they hope to accomplish by forcing people to remain members of a republic they hoped to leave? A Jedi victory in war could only produce tyranny and resentment.
Anakin Skywalker suffers the physical and psychological scares of the Jedi’s betrayal. He came of age while fighting a war, so he saw things nobody should ever see. Anakin had to rationalize his and the Jedi’s actions by concluding that the Republic was not merely a means to an end that includes liberty and justice. Instead, Anakin concluded that the Republic was an end in itself. No wonder he eventually sided with Palpatine, who advocated the idea of a unified republic at any cost. When Anakin became Darth Vader, he was convinced that he was acting in the best interests of society.
Can we accomplish good by committing evil? No, evil will always produce more evil. Evil warps our priorities and judgment. Evil methods harm the innocent people we are trying to help. When they do not show appreciation for our actions, we become defensive. As a result, we create more resentment and anger, which leads to more conflict and evil. Every problem we solve with evil methods produces more problems.
Can we gain liberty through violence? No, violence leads to more violence and misery. Look at our own history, how one war has led to another and to another. World War I led us to World War II, which led us to the Cold War and now to fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq. Remember, we once supported, supplied, and trained Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, because they were our allies against the USSR. Which of our allies today will be our enemies tomorrow?
Can we achieve social justice by stealing property from one group of individuals through taxes and eminent domain, and redistributing it to another? No, the theft and redistribution of property creates an adversarial relationship between different people. Some people develop a sense of entitlement and class envy, so instead of trying to improve their situation they wallow in self-pity and bitterness. Others resent losing their hard earned money and view less fortunate people as a drag on society. They devise stricter social controls that will “cure” the poor of their “vices.” The two groups no longer view each other as neighbors; instead, they blame each other for the loss of liberty and dignity. At the same time, people in power fight over their piece of the pie and dish out other people’s money to their friends. One evil policy leads directly to another.
Grace, Love & Peace August Ecklund at 12:21 AM
4 Comments:
Interesting article.
You know how ignorant I am about libertarianism, but it strikes me that libertarians, like so many (or perhaps all) philosophical/political groups, grasp and hold on to one truth, whereas reality demands nuance, or balance between opposites. (The same can be said about my more liberal perspective, by the way).
For example, our market capitalist society at its best rewards innovative, energetic entrepeneurs with the fruits of their labor - wealth. It would be foolish to tax all the wealth away from such entrepeneurs and give it to those who are neither innovative nor energetic. Obviously, that would inhibit the kind of growth we want to encourage, and encourage dependence and stagnation.
On the other hand, to call taxation theft seems to be overdoing it. Thinking for a moment locally, if my city council raises property taxes to pay for roads and schools, and I don't like it, I can move. There may be better, more rational and fair ways to pay for government functions than income or property taxes (such as a land tax), but all organized civilization from ancient Sumer to today has had to find some way to pay for government.
One more point (back to the prophetic biblical perspective!), yes, while a Robin Hood style government - simply stealing from the rich to give to the poor, redistribution for the sake of redistribution - is not good, God never judged Israel for being too hard on the rich, but rather for being too hard on the poor. Would there be less poverty, less hunger, less homelessness in a libertarian world?
If an idea or philosophy is correct or contains truth, how can you possible improve it by balancing it with incorrect ideas or untruths? That does not make sense. Good ideas and philosophy if properly executed produce good results. Bad ideas and philosophy produce bad results. If a company or team has a bad strategy, it does not matter how well they execute the plan, more often than not they will fail. If bad ideas provide the foundation of government and laws, the results are always destructive. In short, ideas matter.
Income tax is theft. Most people I know would rather spend time with their families instead of working. However, we sacrifice our time and energy for our employers because we receive value in return. When other people use coercion to forcibly take the product of our labor, they are stealing. It does not matter if the thief is a mugger pointing a gun in the street or government threatening jail. The theft of income does not just affect the rich, but also the middle class and working poor. Imagine if your employer pays you $30,000 a year, but after federal, social security, and state taxes you only receive $22,000. At that income level, $8,000 is very significant.
True, if some form of government is necessary (I consider this debatable), than it needs some revenue. Before 1913, income tax did not exist and the government survived on import duties and a few sales taxes. I would be in favor of returning to that system minus the sales tax. In addition, I would consider limited taxes on corporations. Forming a corporation has definite benefits, because corporations protect the owners’ personal property if their business goes bankrupt. It makes sense that they should pay for the protection. Finally, I would be in favor of taxing companies that cause air pollution, based on the amount of pollution they produce. Get rid of the EPA, which merely grants favored companies licenses to pollute, a pollution tax will give companies sufficient incentive to develop cleaner methods of production. James Leroy Wilson at Independent Country often argues in favor of land taxes as you suggested. I admit that the idea is intriguing, but I am not convinced that is the best route to go.
I do not believe in utopia, so in a libertarian society there still would be poor and unsuccessful people. Criminals and dishonest people would also be around. However, smaller government would mean fewer if any regulations or taxes, which means more opportunities for enterprising entrepreneurs and jobs. In addition, with diminished government intrusion, private institutions such as family, church, and charities would get stronger, which means a better support system for struggling people. So yes, in a libertarian world there would be less poverty, less hunger and less homelessness.
Politics, it seems, is always an art of compromise - unless you live in a one party system. If you grant that, in our lifetimes, we won't have 100 libertarian Senators, a full House of libertarians, and a libertarian President, then you will have to continue to spread your ideas in the marketplace.
It is not a question of balancing truth and falsehood, good and evil - that's a partisan, us and them way of thinking. It is a matter of balancing the concerns and interests of many different people. In general, I see a lot of good in the libertarian position, and a movement toward becoming a more free society would be a good thing.
You write that "Good ideas and philosophy if properly executed produce good results." THERE is a test - move toward a more libertarian society, and see if the results are good - if we have more life, more liberty, more freedom to pursue happiness.
Even in a one party system, compromises exist between factions within the party. Compromise may be inevitable, but we must never lower our moral standards. Just because we can achieve the compromise, that does not mean we should make comprise the ideal. If we do, we corrupt our moral philosophy. A philosophy made up of falsehood cannot balance the concerns and interests of anyone.
We must always consider the question between good and evil. Partisanship is conservatives supporting President George Bush because he is a Republican, even though his policies are liberal. I am talking about judging an idea based on its moral merit, not on its source. I do not mean to say that everyone in government or who supports government is deliberately evil. Most people have good intentions, but when they fail to recognize the basic moral principle at stake, their intentions do not matter. All that matters is the evil they create and the harm they cause. As the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Post a Comment
<< Home