In my review of Star Wars: Episode 1 -- The Phantom Menace, I make a big stink about the fact that the "good" Republic is imposing taxes on interstellar trade routes, and point out that the "bad" Trade Federation (TF) are simply fighting this legitimized extortion. The TF are within their rights, I argue, and the Republic are beyond theirs. Indeed, the supposedly "good" Jedi knights, Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan MacGregor) are nothing more than space tax agents. I was pretty disgusted with the film.

Popular internet columnist and reluctant semicelebrity Claire Wolfe liked my review so much that she copied it to her website, The Wolfe's Lodge, with my blessing. Shortly thereafter someone read my review on her site and had this to say:

"Just read James Kelley's review of the Star Wars film.  Not sure
if he saw the same film I saw.  Some of his facts are backwards,
and his interpretation is pretty skewed, to my mind.  It's not
_quite_  up to the standard of the first three, but it doesn't
deserve his level of vitriol.

"I ran across a review pretty much the opposite of Kelley's on
mises.org. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?FS=%3Ch3%3EState+Wars
A fun read."

It is also mistaken.

I believe the above correspondent's notion that "Some of [ my ] facts are backward," stems from both the Mises reviewer's and his own misunderstanding of the plot. The story behind that one is interesting, and it says a lot about the mindset of both critics (the Mises critic and my critic) as well as the common tendency to see what we wish to see, not what is really there.

I've asked Claire to put the e-mailer in touch with me (ever mindful of privacy, she did not identify who it was) but, until that happens, I have no idea what "facts" I am supposed to have gotten backward. The main one is, I think, the true identity of the Tax Collector. Exactly who is imposing the tax on the trade routes is crucial to understanding the plot, and to any critique of the picture's moral stance. In TPM, the Republic is good, the Federation bad: that's a given. If the Federation is imposing the tax, that means the tax is bad, at least from the movie's point of view. If, on the other hand, the tax is imposed by the Republic -- the Good Guys -- then what are we to think? That taxation is good and tax rebellion is bad? This would seem to be at odds with the values of the first three Star Wars movies. This is, however, exactly the message of TPM.

If you read the Mises review, you know the reviewer was quite pleased with TPM, believing it to show the moral difference between federalists and republicans (not our Republicans, but people who favor a republic). The writer believes the TF has some sort of "franchise on trade taxes," a strange notion which I don't quite understand. Does he mean that the TF has been granted permission by the Republic to collect a tax? That's what "franchise" means: you don't get a franchise just by imposing yourself on helpless victims, but by being granted some sort of priviledge by a more powerful entity which can revoke it. Thus, even if the TF does have a "franchise on trade taxes" they are the Republic's taxes, not the TF's. No matter who actually collects the tax, the Republic is the 800-pound gorilla here.

Perhaps it would be best to quote the movie itself:

FROM THE OPENING TITLE:
"the taxation of interstellar trade routes is in dispute"

Interesting wording there: "in dispute." It doesn't actually say who is imposing the tax and who is disputing it. An odd ambiguity in a film series famed for its moral bluntness. Do you suppose that was intentional, or not?

FROM THE TF VICEROY TO QUI-GON JINN:
"Our blockade is perfectly legal."

An odd concern for someone in a position of power. The powerful always assert the "legality" of their actions, but they don't worry that someone else will disagree. Clearly, as you watch the film, the Viceroy is concerned. It's pretty obvious the TF is not nearly as powerful as the Republic. Indeed, in reminding Qui-Gon that his actions are "legal" the Viceroy behaves just like some Americans who refuse to pay income taxes on "legal" grounds -- not that it does them any good. Our republic still tosses them in debtor's prison.

CAPT. PANAKA ON THE NOT-YET-BEGUN INVASION:
"They'd be crazy to do that. The Senate would revoke their franchise and they'd be finished."

THE VICEROY AND SENATOR PALPATINE DISCUSSING THE INVASION:
VICEROY: "Is this legal?"
PALPATINE: "I will MAKE it legal."

Once again, it is obvious that the Republic is the government here and the Trade Federation is nothing of the sort. As anyone can tell you, only governments impose taxes: it is one of the things that makes them governments. Any "tax" imposed by a non-government is denounced as robbery. The fact that taxation is just robbery by another name escapes most people, but not usually laissez-faire capitalists like the ones at mises.org. Indeed, the reviewer agrees that taxation is robbery, he just refuses to see that it is his precious Republic that's doing the robbing.

Finally, the oratorical coup de grace,

SENATOR PALPATINE ADDRESSING THE SENATE ON THE INVASION:
"... a tragedy which began in this very chamber with the taxation of trade routes."

THERE! Straight from the horse's ass: the taxation of trade routes began in the Senate Chamber of the Republic.

It should be clear to anyone now that the Republic, not the Trade Federation, is the entity taxing the trade routes. The TF, then, are the ones resisting the tax.

This may be a bit unnerving for fans of the Star Wars series, especially those of a freedom-loving bent (like me) who revered the first 3 pictures for their moral character. Rebellion against the Evil Empire was not only fun, it was good - morally good. We adored the first trilogy not because we wanted to slaughter people or blow things up (liberal claptrap notwithstanding) but because it spoke to our hearts.

I dunno about you, but my heart hasn't fared well since May 19.

I am utterly fascinated by the mises.org reviewer's belief that it was the Federation, not the Republic, that was imposing the tax. One might say it was a simple mistake, that the TF were the Bad Guys so of course anyone would believe that, since taxation is bad, they were the ones doing it. Such simplemindedness is more likely from a child than an adult, however, and remember that anyone involved with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (to give it its full name) has done a lot of critical thinking about morality, and about the sources of rights and prosperity, if nothing else. No, it's too hard for me to believe this guy made a simple mistake. I think somehting deeper is at work.

Among Libertarians, Objectivists and patriots, to name just three, the word REPUBLIC seems to have an almost magical aura about it. They are fond of pointing out that "America is a republic, not a democracy" as if that meaningless word could right every wrong we suffer. The fact that democracy equals majority rule, and that ALL voting in a so-called "republic" is decided in favor of the majority, seems to escape them. In fact, a so-called "republic" is nothing but a democracy by another name -- and "democracy" is nothing but tyranny by another name. It's all just GOVERNMENT no matter what you call it.

Shit by any other name still stinks.

I believe the mises.org reviewer is one of these republic-worshippers. When he saw the word "republic" his brain instantly went into a kind of perceptive stall, one in which the magic word made everything it touched Good, and anything opposing it Bad. He couldn't see the evidence, repeated half a dozen times before his eyes and ears, written into the script, that it was the Republic that was doing something he found totally revolting: extorting taxes out of simple, honest traders.

Indeed, he even mentally converted the Federation into "federalists" to fit his need to believe in the Republic's inherent goodness. For the record, the TF are not "federalists." It should be obvious to anyone who sees TPM that they didn't even want to invade Naboo, but were put up to it by Senator Palpatine -- a republic bureaucrat don'tcha know. I can't think of a better illustration of how bad ANY government is, perhaps especially one that has cheerleaders looking at it through rose-colored glasses. The conversion to an "empire" was entirely cosmetic, it would seem.

No, Mysterious Critic, I did not see the same film you saw.

I stand by my vitriol.

-- James Kelley
Columbus, Ohio
June 7, 1999