Hm, speaking of the Jedi code, I think there was something like this we saw play out when Sagon, not sure how seriously, defended the Sith, looking just at the doctrines of the two mostly and declaring the Sith not bad.
This I think might be called something like axiomic philosophy, philosophying from principles.
Vee made a counter video that Sargon was speaking nonsense because he was ignoring the actual nature of the force, and thus the radically different outcomes between trying to move in harmony with the force like the Jedi vs bending the force to your will.
Plus, well, the "historical" record showing what the "natural philosophy" on the nature of the force would theorize, that you can't use the "dark side" to positive ends.
Thus, to get the Jedi you need a play off between the axioms of the philosophy and the natural philosophy/science of what the force actually is. Which, naturally, is something hard to actually pin down: the light side and dark side are "real", but is the force light and dark side mere corruption, or are they equal and opposites? Prequel Jedi certainly seemed to believe the light was balance, while the dark was the sign of imbalance, while later stories seem to follow a much more yin yang view of the two.
We seem right now to be having a similar disucion, except instead of discussing the force, where arguing about human nature, specifically what exactly the libertarian conception of human nature is.
@Abhorsen , you seem to be more or less claiming that libertarians are making no particular claims to human nature, either how it is or should be. This may even be true.
However, as much time as one may spend in the land of spherical cows, practical Jedi ing eventually requires a Jedi order to deal with the practical issues of how the force actually works and the nature of what duty the order is trying to play.
And, no attachments serves several practical benefits while being in harmony with the philosophy. It frees up more time to train, since after all gaining power though the light side is a long, slow process. It limits a major vector for strong emotions to corrupt to the Jedi to darkness. I mean how many people are driven to a dark place by marriage or child problems when there isn't a force thats gonna directly feed off and renforce that darkness?
And finally, to fulfill their role as mediator and protector of the republic, being celibrate without strong attachments outside the order improves the credibility of the Order as neutral arbiter of disputes, and helps avoid dynastic struggles within the oder itself.
Like imagine anikin with his existing relationships in normal peace time. If they found out he was sleeping with a princess of naboo and was good friends with the chancellor, who could reasonably trust him to be a neutral arbiter in any dispute between bamboo and anyone else, or a complaint about the Republic in general?
It would undermine the entire reputation of the order and the ability to mediate to people's satisfaction.
Thus, given the nature of the force itself and practical issues of what the Jedi Order was trying to do/be, no attatchments makes sense.
Likewise, practical libertarianism I think has to make some claims about what human nature is. Oftentimes, looking at mainstream liberalism/libertarianism, I suspect that for lack of saying anything definate, what libertarian uses more or less by default is, if not explicit blank slate, then near practical blank slateism, mixed with what is implied by homo economicus, though I understand why no libertarian would self identify with a term thats basically a slur.
I posit this a little bit by comparing mainstream liberalism to Hopper libertarianism. Hopper I believe makes some definitely not mainstream liberal assumptions about human nature, and they produce a very different conception of what an ideal liberal state looks like.