Why the empire is evil...

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

Do you think the Empire is evil?

Poll ended at 2002-07-16 09:43pm

yes
12
32%
no
21
57%
not sure
4
11%
 
Total votes: 37

User avatar
Darth Yoshi
Metroid
Posts: 7342
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:00pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Darth Yoshi »

The Empire as a whole isn't evil. The Empire may have done evil things, but those were caused by individuals who were evil. The Empire's got decent people, like Pellaeon, Thrawn, Teren Rogriss from Solo Command and Starfighters of Adumar, Fel, the captain of the Direption in Isard's Revenge, Daala, etc.
You may dispute Daala and Thrawn, but they genuinely cared about the well-being of their troops, and they cared about order and stability.
Image
Fragment of the Lord of Nightmares, release thy heavenly retribution. Blade of cold, black nothingness: become my power, become my body. Together, let us walk the path of destruction and smash even the souls of the Gods! RAGNA BLADE!
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
User avatar
David
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3752
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:54am
Contact:

Post by David »

The only complaint I see constantly popping up is that the Empire was raciest and speciest ( is that a word?), anyways the current Empire shows no evidence of that.
User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6808
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Post by Soontir C'boath »

Darth Yoshi wrote:The Empire as a whole isn't evil. The Empire may have done evil things, but those were caused by individuals who were evil. The Empire's got decent people, like Pellaeon, Thrawn, Teren Rogriss from Solo Command and Starfighters of Adumar, Fel, the captain of the Direption in Isard's Revenge, Daala, etc.
You may dispute Daala and Thrawn, but they genuinely cared about the well-being of their troops, and they cared about order and stability.
Thank you.

Cyaround,
Jason
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22431
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Post by Mr Bean »

Only the Emperor could be called rasist and that was just him and the good old boys he brought with em

Of course then Agian Vadar went around killing them so I guess it balanced in the End
:)

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
David
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3752
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:54am
Contact:

Post by David »

I know some of the good ol boys. They all think black people are the cause of the world's problems.
User avatar
Nova Andromeda
Jedi Master
Posts: 1404
Joined: 2002-07-03 03:38am
Location: Boston, Ma., U.S.A.

Response to objections since my last post...

Post by Nova Andromeda »

Again there seem to be a few catagories of objection. I will list and deal with each separately.


List of Objections:
1. IDMR lists some rights and says they can conflict and they are not axiomatic. I presume that the agruement is the Empire's choice of which rights to enforce is just as defensable as the ones I would choose.
2. Darth Wong asks for a definition of evil and then gives a list things and asks if they are evil.
3. Mr. Bean provides some quotes for the justification of the Empire.
4. Others say the Empire had good people in it so the Empire was good.


Rebuttal of Objections
1. IDMR is correct in saying the rights he has listed are not axiomatic and can be in conflict. However, those are not the basic rights I'm talking about. If you refer to the intial post I made the thread with you will find the basic rights I'm referring to. When you expand these one to one rights to the scale of a large society you end up with general rights like freedom of expression (from the idea that you have the right to do anything you want when it doesn't affect others), a right to privacy (from the idea that you have the right to minimize interactions with others that are under either your or their control), etc. However, interactions between people are constant and on going and often forces a society to partially abridge some individuals' rights (when I say force I mean there is literally no choice in the matter). However, if this is the case then the equitable thing to do is minimize the total cost of the abridgements over the entire population. This means whether you abridge peoples right to security or their right to privacy depends heavily on the circumstances (yes, it may be complex, but that is how things are). I would add, that an entity's right to terminate its existance can never be abridged (one needs to consider the case where enternal torture of one individual is the minimum total cost of the abridgement of rights).

2. Darth Wong is correct when he says things are not simple. To start let me address the definition of evil. I will use the online dictionary found here:
http://www.m-w.com/
Basically, I find a string of loops that seems to end at inequality being defined as evil.: evil=morally reprehesible=morally wrong=unjust/unfair=inequitable
"equitable: dealing fairly and equally with all concerned"
-The basic rights I have outlined keep the changes to intelligent entities due to interactions between those entites equal to the extent possible yet allows any entity to abridge their own right to this equality if they so desire. When it comes to gov. the goal should be to minimize the total cost due to the forced abridgement of those basic rights. Any government that persues this policy in good faith should be considered good. Any government that does not should be considered evil. This is suficient to address all of Darth Wong's questions I believe.
-To keep things as brief as possible I will address only the cities and dictatorships for now.
:Cities
A. Did entities in those cities abridge the rights of the attacking entities?
B. If so, was the cost of the abridgement of the rights of any innocents in those cities less than the cost of the abridgement of the right of the attackers to attack.
C. If so, were the total loses in those cities justified by the loses of the attackers as per my intial thread?
D. If not with respect to (A), was there a known alternative to the destruction of those cities that would have decreased the total cost of abridgement of rights on all sides?
-If you get to (C) and the answer is yes or if you get to (D) and the answer is no it was not evil. All other answers are evil (unless I missed some options). You should note I did not include property owners outside of the cities due to length, but that could have been added too.
:Dictatorship
A. Did the gov. seek to minimize the cost of the abridgement of the rights of the entities under its control using any means within its power?
-If the answer is yes the gov. is not evil. If it is no the gov. is evil. Clearly the answer is no with respect to the Empire. The Emperor used the gov. to take by force what he did not deserve and crush all movements to remedy abuses by him and his gov.

3. "the worlds rose in rebelllion against the authoirty legally in place over them." Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is not evil. This is especially true when it comes to a dictator who alone decides what is legal and what is not. The entities that did not agree to the dictatorship had a right to rise up against it assuming the dictatorship was not the best option as described at the end of (2).

4. Most of the people under the control of the Empire are irrelevant. The question being asked is if the Empire, (i.e., the dictatorial gov.), was evil. I have already supplied my solution to this question.
Nova Andromeda
IRG CommandoJoe
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3481
Joined: 2002-07-09 12:51pm

Post by IRG CommandoJoe »

I disagree with you pro-Empire people. There were many atrocities the Empire committed against its own people, and they were never necessary. Man, oh man, I don't know where to begin. How about clarifying one major aspect first? As you all should now realize, Imperial Stormtroopers are ammoral. As displayed in Episodes 5-6 and in Attack of the Clones, their pyschology has obviously been altered so that they are fearless, have no emotion, but can think logically in combat. Almost like Vulcans, except probably less intelligent. They never flinch in combat at all. There were many situations that suggest otherwise, such as the discussion of landspeeders, the surrendering on Bespin and Endor, and the retreat on Endor, but that is where the logic comes in. That is what makes them different from droids. If droids realized the futility in all of those combat situations, they would surrender or power down, or self-destruct, or whatever as well. Besides, alive, captured soldiers with the possibility of escape are better than dead soldiers. Now, let's move on to the "only following orders" issue. Since Stormtroopers mindlessly obey every single order given to them with exactness, no matter how ridiculous, immoral, or useless they are, they completely reflect their superiors. The officers that "only follow orders" are just as bad as the ones that "only followed orders" in the Holocaust. Now if everyone in Germany refused to commit those horrible, horrible acts of pure evil, they might have died...but they wouldn't have violated their principals and morals, and millions of innocent people wouldn't have been tortured and murdered. Or does that matter anymore in this thread? The Empire being ruled by two Sith should definitely reflect the morals of the entire organization in many ways. First of all, if the entire Empire is under the power of Sith, there are going to be many evil things going on. Their selection of Governors and Admirals and Generals are obviously going to be evil people. Just like Hitler selected people that were loyal to him and were sadistic enough to actually want to torture and kill Jews. You really think the Emperor and Vader would appoint people like Mon Mothma and Bail Organa as government officials? Hell no! Why don't people realize that the galaxy was split up into only good and evil sides?! It was a civil war between good and evil! Anyone that had any prevailing morals in the Empire defected to the Rebellion. Even Luke only wanted to attend the Academy just to get training and join the Rebellion. All of his friends on Tatooine did. The people obviously hated the Empire, as seen at the end of RotJ. Everything suggests that the Empire was evil. And everything suggests the Empire was racist and sexist. Have you ever once seen a female or alien Imperial? Have you ever once seen a black Imperial? Clearly, they contrast to the Rebels. There were aliens, females, and people with different skin color all around the Home One and in the cockpits of the starfighters in RotJ. The Imperials were made to be portrayed as Nazi bastards. Their uniforms might be more similar to the Japanese in WWII, but everything else about the Imperials is similar to the Nazis of WWII. They were arrogant and evil bastards. Remember on Hoth when the Rebels were orderd to retreat? The AT-ATs actually picked off the Rebels as they had their backs turned toward them, fleeing for their lives! What a bastard Veers was. The AT-STs did the same on Endor. When the Ewoks were obviously retreating, they slaughtered them. The murder of Jawas on Tatooine was an atrocity. Even if the Jawas were resistent, there was no need to kill them. And come on...you really think Jawas would even argue with Stormtroopers? They aren't a warlike people...they are merchants with no hostile intent. Luke even said so. The Jawas probably told everything the Stormtroopers needed to know willingly, and then the commanders ordered them dead. Then, the same thing happened to poor old Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru. No matter what the hell they might have done, soldiers aren't supposed to kill civilians. And with the relative ease of stunning people in the Star Wars universe, there is no need to, unless you're simply evil. They could have simply stunned them and get the information they needed. The destruction of Alderaan was because Tarkin was an evil bastard. And considering the Death Star, what the hell was even the purpose of building it if the Empire wasn't evil? Would the Empire really destroy entire planets that would have supporters and loyal citizens if it cared? If the Empire was so decent and honest and such a good form of government, would it really have to build a space station that destroys an entire planet? What, are they going to interview every single person on the planet and see if they are Rebels before they destroy it? Bullshit! Are they going to offer the planet a chance to surrender? Bullshit! Do they have any intention of protecting the innocents, such as women and children and maximize military targets and minimize civilian casualties like the Rebellion tries to do? Bullshit! Does the Empire even care about its own people? Bullshit! Tarkin destroyed an entire planet as a demonstration!!! A freaking demonstration! He treated it like watching fireworks! How could people even consider a government being good that kills off millions of people for the purpose of testing out a new weapon? Also, in what civilized government do people get executed for making mistakes, and without trials? Apparantly, the Empire. In a good government, people aren't just lined up and shot the way Vader kills his officers wholesale. And after watching those horrible torture scenes where Leia was interrogated and Han was put on that scanning grid for no reason, you're going to tell me the Empire isn't evil? There is no limit to what the assholes in power can do. I'm sure Tarkin would have done the same thing as Vader did, just as he did to Alderaan. Even in the beginning of the movies, the text says the Rebellion is trying to restore freedom to the galaxy. Apparantly, the Empire took away what we define as freedom, or even human rights. All of the weapons were designed to instill fear upon the people and enemies of the Empire. Good governments don't need to have the people fear it. The people are supposed to control the government, at least to a certain extent. The Empire doesn't allow for that at all. The Senate was abolished, so the people have absolutley no voice in the government at all. Dictatorship can be mighty fine, but when you have someone bad as the dictator, like say...a Sithlord, it's mighty horrible. And there is no peaceful transition of power once the dictator dies. There's always some sort of revolution or coup that we see happening in the world all the time. Fortunately, most of us here never have to witness anything like that. Even the musical themes of the Empire sound militaristic and evil. Whenever Stormtroopers die, TIE Fighters and Star Destroyers blow up, whenever Rebels screw the Empire over (Executor crashing into Death Star, AT-ATs destroyed, Star Destroyers disabled orbiting Hoth, etc.), very triumphant and heroic music is heard. And whenever the same happens to the Rebels, it is depicted as a tragedy in the music. For instance, when both Death Stars blew up, triumphant music was blasted and you see all of the Rebels cheering and everyone laughing it up, smiling, having a good time. When a single Ewok died, the scene was played up and the music was sad, as when the Jawas and Luke's aunt and uncle were found dead, and when Alderaan was blown up, and when the Rebel shield generator blew up on Hoth, and when the Rebels retreated on Hoth. George Lucas obviously intended the Empire to be evil, and as we all know, Lucas is a moral man. The way it was done in Schindler's List it was done in all of the Star Wars movies. The good sides and the evil sides were clearly defined. Anyone who can't see that is either blind, or over-analyzes it. And Boba Fett's quote is pure shit. "the worlds rose in rebelllion against the authoirty legally in place over them. The Emperor was within his rights to destroy them; they threatened the system of social justice that permites civilizations to exist." He paused. "I am sorry for the deaths of the innocent. But that happens in every war, Leia Organa. The innocent die in wars, and your side should not have started this one." Bullshit! The people have the right to rise up against unjust governments. Hell, that's even in our Constitution! The Constitution gives the people the right to rebel against the government if they are not happy with it and if the government abused them. And it doesn't matter what the hell government is in the Star Wars galaxy, it matters what we perceive as moral and/or legal. That is what the whole purpose of this thread is. It is if the Empire is evil in our views. So lets say the President offered the members of Congress high-ranking positions and bribes, and everything they wish for in his new world order...imperial empire.....or whatever important-sounding name he wants to call it if they all of a sudden turned around and started making Constitutional amendments that completely overturned every single Supreme Court ruling that gave people more rights, eliminated Congress, the Supreme Court, changed the name of President to Emperor, gave absolute power to the Emperor, upped military spending, declared martial law, and then started conquering the world? Is that a good government? Because it's technically legal, does that really mean jack shit? OF COURSE NOT!!! Don't let laws that are unjust but legal throw off your sense of morality. Besides, the laws that Palpatine altered were done so for his own personal uses. And the changes he made must have been so dramatic that it defeats the purpose of even having laws if he is obviously above the law, changing them at his will to fit his needs. Again, putting this in perspective, Hitler obeyed all of the laws of Germany. Look where it got Germany. You think the people didn't have the right to revolt? You think the slaughtering of six million Jews was just fine and dandy just because it was legal? Okay, my raving like a lunatic is over. I do not wish to post any more on this thread. I'm done. Take it or leave it.
Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? -Obi-Wan Kenobi

"In the unlikely event that someone comes here, hates everything we stand for, and then donates a big chunk of money anyway, I will thank him for his stupidity." -Darth Wong, Lord of the Sith

Proud member of the Brotherhood of the Monkey.
LordChaos
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 419
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:20am
Location: Minnesota

Post by LordChaos »

I still maintain that the only evidence of the Empire being "evil" comes from the EU, and the EU is writen in the majority from the rebel's/new republic's veiwpoint. It's only natural for one side in a conflict to portray the other as "evil", regaurdless of the actions of ether side, hense the "rebels = good, empire = evil" in the EU.
There is no problem to dificult for a signifigantly large enough quantity of C-4 to handle.
Image
If you're leaving scorch marks, you aren't using a big enough gun.
User avatar
omegaLancer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 621
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:54pm
Location: New york
Contact:

No Brainer

Post by omegaLancer »

Of Course the Empire is Evil, but is that a bad thing.... The New Republic turn out to be the good guys, but they were alot worse than the Empire ever was.....

The Emperor would have never let a band of nomadic Galaxy hopping sado maschoist over run the galaxy without a fight.. And notice that the only part of the Galaxy being left alone is what left of the Empire... It fear of the Triangle ships and what the Empire stand for.. Order, Force and having a Spine.....
User avatar
IDMR
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 370
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:53am
Location: On board the Imperium Fortress-Monastery Daedalus
Contact:

Re: Response to objections since my last post...

Post by IDMR »

Nova Andromeda wrote:Rebuttal of Objections
1. IDMR is correct in saying the rights he has listed are not axiomatic and can be in conflict. However, those are not the basic rights I'm talking about. If you refer to the intial post I made the thread with you will find the basic rights I'm referring to. When you expand these one to one rights to the scale of a large society you end up with general rights like freedom of expression (from the idea that you have the right to do anything you want when it doesn't affect others), a right to privacy (from the idea that you have the right to minimize interactions with others that are under either your or their control), etc. However, interactions between people are constant and on going and often forces a society to partially abridge some individuals' rights (when I say force I mean there is literally no choice in the matter). However, if this is the case then the equitable thing to do is minimize the total cost of the abridgements over the entire population. This means whether you abridge peoples right to security or their right to privacy depends heavily on the circumstances (yes, it may be complex, but that is how things are). I would add, that an entity's right to terminate its existance can never be abridged (one needs to consider the case where enternal torture of one individual is the minimum total cost of the abridgement of rights).
I do not disagree with you on this, my point was, as can be seen, entirely in response to your post with regards to fundamental rights. I merely asserted that there is really no such thing as a fundamental, inalienable right much as we wish there might be, or if there were, they are quite unenforceable. As to the Empire's morality, I made no comment, and will not do so since I do not know nearly enough on the EU.
"Intellectual rigor annoys people because it interferes with the pleasure they derive from allowing their wishes to be the fathers of their thoughts." - George F. Will

"If theory and reality diverges, change reality." - Josef Stalin
User avatar
Admiral Piett
Jedi Knight
Posts: 823
Joined: 2002-07-06 04:26pm
Location: European Union,the future evil empire

Post by Admiral Piett »

We do not have any proof about the empire being racist in the film(I take in consideration only the films and not the EU).
The claim of racism and sexism derives from the apparent lack of aliens,black people and women in the imperial military.However if you think twice about it this proof is not so solid.In the films of the prequel trilogy we see that Palpatine has trained Darth Maul,who apparently is not an human,
unless the horns were a part of the tattoo package.This does not completely rule out the possibility of Palpatine being a racist but at least it hints against this possibility.Unfortunately the Republic does not have a standing army made up of volounteers so we can not judge very well.However not too surprisingly all the blue senate guards shown are human males and,as far I can see,whites.The two pilots of the cruiser Radiant are,again,white humans although the captain was a woman.For all that we know she may be one of the very few women in her corp (Judicials?senatorial guards in an other uniform,like the swiss guards who wear a more practical uniform when they act as a police?).
In the original trilogy the situation is not different.
In ANH and in TESB the rebel alliance seems nearly a white human male club,with the exception of a couple of women in the Hoth base.Chewbacca and Leia do not really count,the first was there because Solo was there and Leia is a political leader,in the past history of the Earth there were queens who ruled countries but this did not mean that females in general were considered equal to men.Only in the ROTJ there are some aliens in the rebel alliance. However once you put aside the Mon Calamari the great majority of the rebel alliance personnel is still composed by white human males.
So what can we say?
About sexism there is not much evidence.We may have missed the few women serving in the imperial navy,like we could have missed the two on Hoth if we had not been shown the command centre.Maybe the majority of the few women serving in the imperial navy serves in supply depots or command centres,like in the rebel alliance.So at the end we do not have any real proof to say that the empire is sexist,or at least more sexist than the rebel alliance.
About black people well, I may be wrong but I have the impression that there is not plenty of black people in the SW galaxy.The only I can remeber of,correct me if I am wrong, are Mace and Lando.Maybe the planet where the humans evolved in the SW galaxy did not have many equatorial regions or god only knows what.In anyway the situation is quite similar to that of females:we may have missed the very few blacks in the imperial armed forces and there is only one known example in the rebel alliance.So again at the end we do not have any solid proof that the empire is more racist towards blacks than the rebel alliance/old republic.
About aliens.The imperial armed forces seem standardized for humans and composed only by humans, although we cannot rule out the possibility of few humanoid aliens not shown in the films.However as I have already said this seems quite typical in the Sw galaxy.The little military or pseudo military personnel of the old republic, the early rebel alliance are all humans.The same clones are, well,humans.Curtis Saxton thinks that maybe humans are a more war like race or that humans are the majority in the galaxy but after having seen AOTC I do not find both explanations plausible.Maybe standardization is an issue.The little Lando's copilot in the ROTJ may be one of the few examples of aliens joining the rebel alliance on an individual basis.The rebels may have allied themselves with the Mon Calamari like the imperials have engaged the aliens bounty hunters.
Leia shows,in ANH, disgust for Chewbacca exactly like the imperial officer on the death star.In an army there may be racist individual but this does not mean that that particular army has racist policies.
In conclusion we cannot really say that the Empire discriminate blacks and women,at least not more than the alliance/old republic.About non humans the situation is more uncertain but still not enough to say that the empire is racist.
However the Empire is bad.Cool but bad.It is not like the nazi Germany but it is comparable to Franco or Mussolini's regime.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

There appears to be some fundamental mis-communication here. Nova refers to the abridgement of rights. IDMR says those rights are not self-evident (and I agree). Nova retorts that they stem from basic rights. IDMR says those basic rights are no more self-evident than the rights which stem from them. Nova seems to miss this point, and reiterates that all rights flow from some basic rights.

Any logical system is based on reasoning, premises, and observations. In this case, Nova seems unwilling to acknowledge that even the most "fundamental" rights are actually premises rather than observations or reasoning. One must accept their validity in order to continue.

Ayn Rand's objectivism attempts to solidify its premises regarding rights by tying them to the natural world (every animal regards its own life as paramount, so the right to life is the prime value, and lots of complicated logic leads to other rights). However, that is the "naturalistic fallacy" (everything natural must be good/right/moral), which has no more basis in logic than "because I said so". It is also inaccurate; many animals consider breeding more important than self-preservation.

Nova, you must try to accept that the rights and equalities you champion are mere premises. One could just as easily say that order and peace are more important than rights and equalities (this is what Vader believed). Many religions teach that rules and authority are more important than rights and equalities (not that I agree with them, but I'm just trying to make a point that your premises are not universal).

Personally, I feel that suffering/death = bad, and pleasure/life = good. Is that any less valid than the rights that we have been taught to accept as "universal"? Because it can lead to different conclusions regarding the Empire. The Republic was fragmenting into countless fiefdoms, controlled by ruthless corporations which maintained private armies and openly engaged in terrorism to control the helpless populations caught in their grasp. The Outer Rim was a cesspool of corruption and crime, with open slavery. The Empire came in and eliminated all of this. The ensuing civil war with the Rebels cost many lives, but war always does (see Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden for examples of "good guys" committing mass murder of noncombatants), and as Boba Fett said, "your side shouldn't have started this one".
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
David
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3752
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:54am
Contact:

Post by David »

Is that any less valid than the rights that we have been taught to accept as "universal"? Because it can lead to different conclusions regarding the Empire. The Republic was fragmenting into countless fiefdoms, controlled by ruthless corporations which maintained private armies and openly engaged in terrorism to control the helpless populations caught in their grasp. The Outer Rim was a cesspool of corruption and crime, with open slavery. The Empire came in and eliminated all of this. The ensuing civil war with the Rebels cost many lives, but war always does (see Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden for examples of "good guys" committing mass murder of noncombatants), and as Boba Fett said, "your side shouldn't have started this one".


Thank you. Once again, the Empire was necessary.
User avatar
Admiral Piett
Jedi Knight
Posts: 823
Joined: 2002-07-06 04:26pm
Location: European Union,the future evil empire

Post by Admiral Piett »

Mr Wong I consider only the films.And in the films we see that Tatooine under the republic is a lawless gangsters controlled hellhole.Under the empire is STILL a lawless gangsters controlled hellhole.Ian Solo is tortured apparently without reason.We see the death star destroying a planet without not even asking surrender:the Empire uses terrorism to mantain control.And,last touch, we see entire planets celebrating the death of the supposedly "good" emperor.
In short the empire is a tyrannical dictatorship.
Order?The empire has brought no order to the galaxy.Gangsterism,bounty hunters and so on are still allowed.The empire obviously does not care if criminals hurt people but any political dissent is crushed with wide use of lethal force and even with the use of weapons of mass destruction.
What do you find of good in it it is a mystery to me.
Of course from the aesthetical point of view I prefere the empire.Can you compare ruthless officiers who wear cool uniforms and travel with big, ultracool star destroyers to a bunch of disgustingly politically correct farmboys who fly,with the exception of the X-wing,on a collection of space trash?
But the fact that the Tiger II is a cool tank and the SS wear a cool uniform does not make Hitler's government a good one.Of course as I have written before the empire is not the Nazi Germany,since they do not exterminate people because they do not match with a racial standard but they limit themselves to eliminate political dissent.But they are obviously a government people do not want,at least in the ROTJ era(all those street parties,do you remember?).
User avatar
Captain Cyran
Psycho Mini-lop
Posts: 7037
Joined: 2002-07-05 11:00pm
Location: College... w00t?

Post by Captain Cyran »

Do i need to list the mass murders the Republic has caused...no actually, one droid has caused more death's then the emperor could have ever hoped to....R2-D2

1. The Death Star
2. Eclipse II
3. Galaxy Gun
4. Byss

And that is just R2-D2, if you include the Rebels you should add

5. Death Star II
6. Multiple SSD's
7. Multiple ISD's
8. God knows only how many other un-told thousands to millions of people

To retake Coruscant they destroyed the weather controls and let lose a storm which killed who knows how many. Also to retake Coruscant they let 12 of the Galaxies most dangerous criminals loose on the planet. In Shadows of the Empire Leia blew up Xizor's Castle which is in the Imperial city. So as I see it the rebels are about as dangerous as the Empire.
Justice League, Super-Villain Carnage "Carnage Rules!" Cult of the Kitten Mew... The Black Mage with The Knife SD.Net Chronicler of the Past Bun Bun is my hero. The Official Verilonitis Vaccinator
User avatar
Captain Cyran
Psycho Mini-lop
Posts: 7037
Joined: 2002-07-05 11:00pm
Location: College... w00t?

Post by Captain Cyran »

Admiral Piett wrote:Mr Wong I consider only the films.And in the films we see that Tatooine under the republic is a lawless gangsters controlled hellhole.Under the empire is STILL a lawless gangsters controlled hellhole.Ian Solo is tortured apparently without reason.We see the death star destroying a planet without not even asking surrender:the Empire uses terrorism to mantain control.And,last touch, we see entire planets celebrating the death of the supposedly "good" emperor.
In short the empire is a tyrannical dictatorship.
Order?The empire has brought no order to the galaxy.Gangsterism,bounty hunters and so on are still allowed.The empire obviously does not care if criminals hurt people but any political dissent is crushed with wide use of lethal force and even with the use of weapons of mass destruction.
What do you find of good in it it is a mystery to me.
Of course from the aesthetical point of view I prefere the empire.Can you compare ruthless officiers who wear cool uniforms and travel with big, ultracool star destroyers to a bunch of disgustingly politically correct farmboys who fly,with the exception of the X-wing,on a collection of space trash?
But the fact that the Tiger II is a cool tank and the SS wear a cool uniform does not make Hitler's government a good one.Of course as I have written before the empire is not the Nazi Germany,since they do not exterminate people because they do not match with a racial standard but they limit themselves to eliminate political dissent.But they are obviously a government people do not want,at least in the ROTJ era(all those street parties,do you remember?).
Tatoonie was no where near the lawless planet it was during the Republic. It would have been nearly impossible to fully clean that area up. The Empire could do nothing with Gangsterism, in fact the NR has done nothing against it either, in fact i am almost positive Gangsterism has raised between the Empire to the NR. As I and many people have said before, during the Emperor's reign yes, the Empire was evil and downright sadistic but once he died the Empire although not good was a LOT better.
Justice League, Super-Villain Carnage "Carnage Rules!" Cult of the Kitten Mew... The Black Mage with The Knife SD.Net Chronicler of the Past Bun Bun is my hero. The Official Verilonitis Vaccinator
User avatar
Nova Andromeda
Jedi Master
Posts: 1404
Joined: 2002-07-03 03:38am
Location: Boston, Ma., U.S.A.

Response to Darth Wong's idea of mis-communication...

Post by Nova Andromeda »

--Darth Wong suggests that my basic premise is the idea of basic rights and rebutts my arguements using the line of reasoning that my basic premise is not self evident. However, the idea of basic rights is not my basic premise and his rebuttal is flawed due to that.

--If one refers to one of my previous responses it should be fairly clear what my basic premises are.
--One's basic rights are not arbitrary and are derived from very basic principles.
-It is clear that the only thing that matters in nature is power. If you have the power to do something then you can do it regardless of what anyone might think or want.
-However, when any individual looks at the big picture it should be clear that they neither know everything or can control everything. This means they cannot properly determine whether or not they can accomplish the most by the use of their power and that in general it is rather unlikely. This means we need to consider the best way to interact with others who will react to our actions.
-If an individual simply does things because they can without regard to the interest of others then the others have no reason to act with regard to the interest of that individual. This leads to a continual contest of power which is very destructive. On the other hand if each individual acts with regard to every other individual's interests then those other individuals have a strong reason to act with regard to that individual's interests (to continue to avoid adverse affects of the first individual's actions).
-However, it is not in an individual's interests to act within a system of rules biased against them. Therefore, the system of rules must be equitable and not biased toward any individual in order for the system to work at maximum efficiency. It is from this analysis that I derive basic rights.
--So what I am saying is that the best way to avoid destructive conflicts between intelligent entities is for those entities to agree to an equitable system of rules. If you decide to work outside of that system you better be damn sure you have sufficient power to accomplish the goals you need to. If you do not have such power you can bet any intelligent entity you have harmed or threaten will use the power they have against you. Since all the entities that work within the equitable system are strengthened by it, due to minimizing the cost of destructive conflicts, you probably have little hope of having greater power than them. So if you are lacking in power the question becomes what is that equitable system exactly.
--The best arguement I have against this line of reasoning is to point out that many people have not reasoned this out and are therefore suceptable to manipulation. This can lead to concentrations of power in a small number of entities who may then have sufficient power to work outside of an equitable system.
--Nevertheless, it is clear that the Emperor did not have sufficient power to accomplish his goals, in my opinion, so it was unwise of him to pursue the path he did. Then again you might argue he just had bad luck.

--There are more details I could add, but I'm hoping this clears up the mis-understanding or is enough for someone to point out what else I'm missing.
Nova Andromeda
LordChaos
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 419
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:20am
Location: Minnesota

Post by LordChaos »

Admiral Piett wrote:Mr Wong I consider only the films.And in the films we see that Tatooine under the republic is a lawless gangsters controlled hellhole.Under the empire is STILL a lawless gangsters controlled hellhole.Ian Solo is tortured apparently without reason.We see the death star destroying a planet without not even asking surrender
And when did the Allies give Dresden the oppertunity to surrender? They didn't. Instead, they spent WEEKS hearding civilian refugees into the city, then firebombed it, causing more loss of life then Hiroshima.
Order?The empire has brought no order to the galaxy.Gangsterism,bounty hunters and so on are still allowed.The empire obviously does not care if criminals hurt people but any political dissent is crushed with wide use of lethal force and even with the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Your previous example of Tatoonee is a good one for this. As of AOTC, it was a lawless place ruled by crimelords. As of ANH, the empire was establishing a presence, and the crimelords opperated "underground". Considering the shear number of planets in the empire, that's not a bad start.

Your "political dissent" however, is a false term. It wasn't "political dissent", it was "armed rebelion". Taking up arms against one's lawfull government ends in two options : defeat or victory. You are, at that point, the enemy of your government, and your government is exicuting their mandate by fighting back. that means warfare, and that means lethal force and likely "weapons of mass destruction" (a term that is often looked at wrong.... ANY weapon beyond small arms can be considered a "weapon of mass destruction").
There is no problem to dificult for a signifigantly large enough quantity of C-4 to handle.
Image
If you're leaving scorch marks, you aren't using a big enough gun.
User avatar
TheDarkling
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4768
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:34am

Post by TheDarkling »

Im jumping in here so excuse me if this has been said but "The evil galactic empire" - I think Lucas meant them to be evil.

Its scary that people think the empire isnt evil.
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22431
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Post by Mr Bean »

Simple thing is Lucus unwittly or wittliny decided to Mess with our heads and make it nothing but shades of Grey :)

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
TheDarkling
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4768
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:34am

Post by TheDarkling »

The way I see it - The Emperor was in charge of the whole show and he put himself before others, he instigated the deaths of millions prehaps billions and he was just plain Mean. :wink:

All of this because he wanted power and revenge upon the Jedi.
User avatar
David
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3752
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:54am
Contact:

Post by David »

Mr Bean wrote:Simple thing is Lucus unwittly or wittliny decided to Mess with our heads and make it nothing but shades of Grey :)

True that.
EMLally
Redshirt
Posts: 15
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:13pm

Post by EMLally »

One could argue that the Galactic Empire WASN'T successful in maintaining order, in truth -- because its policies were such that the Empire faced open rebellion and eventual collapse.

Mind, I can't expound fully on that thought at the moment - but perhaps one of you will?
User avatar
David
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3752
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:54am
Contact:

Post by David »

Mind, I can't expound fully on that thought at the moment - but perhaps one of you will?




EMLally equals rabble rouser.
User avatar
Admiral Piett
Jedi Knight
Posts: 823
Joined: 2002-07-06 04:26pm
Location: European Union,the future evil empire

Post by Admiral Piett »

And when did the Allies give Dresden the oppertunity to surrender? They didn't. Instead, they spent WEEKS hearding civilian refugees into the city, then firebombed it, causing more loss of life then Hiroshima.

There is a substantial difference.Dresden and Hiroshima were not indipendent political entities but portions of Germany and Japan.And both states were not willing to surrender at the time of these bombings.A planet in the SW galaxy is instead a political entity like Germany and Japan.If the allied had had the possibility to wipe out Germany with a single bombing and would have done this without not even asking surrender before doing this then they would have been like the empire.And in anyway if one finds these acts objectionable(a fully legitimate opinion) should recognize that the empire did worse killing en masse his own citizens without even offering the possibility to surrender.


Your previous example of Tatoonee is a good one for this. As of AOTC, it was a lawless place ruled by crimelords. As of ANH, the empire was establishing a presence, and the crimelords opperated "underground". Considering the shear number of planets in the empire, that's not a bad start.

The Empire was establishing a presence there ONLY to find the two droids.
They did not come there to bring order.I would bet that the stormtroopers
were retired as soon as their mission was accomplished.Certainly they did not try to arrest Jabba although it would not have been too difficult for them.You will say me that it is the same for the republic and this is true,but this means that the empire does not enforce the law better,one of the main reasons used to justify the empire.And there is no proof that Jabba really operates underground.
From a Solo's line of dialogue we know that the empire patrols the space and tries to enforce ant-ismuggling laws.But this was probably done in the old republic by the sector forces,so again no improvement.


Your "political dissent" however, is a false term. It wasn't "political dissent", it was "armed rebelion". Taking up arms against one's lawfull government ends in two options : defeat or victory. You are, at that point, the enemy of your government, and your government is exicuting their mandate by fighting back. that means warfare, and that means lethal force and likely "weapons of mass destruction" (a term that is often looked at wrong.... ANY weapon beyond small arms can be considered a "weapon of mass destruction").[/quote]

Disbanding the imperial senate IS definitively to repress political dissent.
Of course for all that we know the rebels may be a bunch of terrorists SOBs and this is simply not shown onscreen.However the emperor has eliminated
the possibility to legally dissent,thus leaving few options to dissenters.

When I see star wars I side with the empire and Palpatine because they are,well,cool.But if I have to do a cold analysis i cannot fail to recognize that the empire is a bad government and the rebels are the good side
Sad but this is so.Of course if one enjoys dictatorship he may find things different.

The only possible justification for the empire is that it would stop civil wars with the related losses and anarchy.And this justification ceased to exist,for me,when the Death star destroyed Aldeeran.From that point on it is obvious that the empire action causes more harm to citizens than the late old republic lack of action.
Post Reply