I think that Noam Chomsky was right in saying that emperors are worse than pirates. While pirates are horrible people, I think that emperors are worse are because a lot of them order and condone killing and murders on a larger scale. Of course this isn't true for all emperors.
I think power corrupts absolutely. If you look at the people in the past who sat on a throne, they committed crimes that are far worse than the people who, fought against them. Pirates just rise up when things are out of control, as do factions, its all in the leadership of the Emperor.
Well, I think that could be said of any ruling party so yes, Emperors are always worse. Pirates are a terror, but they're up front about wanting what you have and relieving you of that property. The ruling class needs to subjugate people to misery over a long term to explot them, and maintain its power advantage.
History has shown that there have actually been a lot of great emperors in the past that created economic freedom, and even improved human rights, despite of them being the ruling class. While almost all pirates have one common goal and that is to acquire valuables at other people's expense and sometimes their life.
Chomsky provides an analogy that places pirates as morally superior to emporers. I think there is a difference between the immorality of an emporer and the immorality of a pirate. Pirates are generally immoral due to the counter-culture of a pirates life, and choices in ones own morality standards. Emperors are often acting in the name of power and country. Machiavelli suggests that morality must not be considered in these actions involving power and country. A pirate chooses to steal, loot and pillage. An Emperor is more often expected to do the same, but for a greater purpose.