Cowardice, yes — Stupidity no
As an addendum to my previous Ode to Surrender, I'd like to dispel misconceptions about the proper role of Cowardice. Says an English proverb, "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day". However, he who is a clever coward runs away well ahead of any bloodshed. The clever coward won't wait for things to get nasty; he won't go to war only to surrender; he won't uselessly waste resources at preparing losing battles; he won't even engage the superior enemy; and even the inferior enemies, he'll find someone else to handle.
Of course, time and again, fighting might be an absolute necessity. There are times when running away is not an option, when surrendering will result neither in your life being spared, nor in the well-being of those you love being preserved. There are enemies who have the murderous intent to take away your life rather than merely the thievish desire to take away your belongings.
But if you're clever enough in your cowardice, you'll avoid those times. You'll stay out of reach of such deadly enemies. You'll accept the dominion of a stronger but less parasitic enemy that you can pit against a more parasitic but weaker enemy. In the last extremity, but way in advance of the actual conflagration, you'll prepare for the actual fight, in such a way that you can win — and since no retreat is possible (or else it wouldn't be the last extremity), you'll then use the leverage of commitment to increase the power of your strike. In other words, you'll carefully pick your battles so you can win them all.
My great grandfather was a war hero: he succeeded at getting killed "for his country" at a war in which he hadn't been forced to partake — for no benefit whatsoever to his country and to the great detriment of his family. His son my grandfather on the other hand is a failed hero: he twice took the initiative to cross great distances to join the battlefield and fight "for his country", and twice failed to arrive on time to be part of any battle. His son my father was an unsuccessful anti-hero: he didn't avoid being drafted in a war he didn't call for, and got poisoned with amibiasis for his service (ah, if only he were like his mates a drinker of beer, not water). But he was clever enough to fight where he ran the least risks: amongst paratroopers. And happily the heroes in the shock troupers to which he was detached were kind enough to leave him behind when they ultimately rushed to their heroic failure. As for me, I hope to be a successful coward: one who manages to stay way clear of any combat zone.
Of course, I'm willing to fund those who will fight battles for me. Considering that warring is an activity that requires specialized skills, it is much more efficient indeed to pay a professional than to partake myself as an amateur. But I'll contribute, in money or in kind, only to those battles that I think are worth fighting, and only if I believe my marginal funding can actually contribute to victory. What more, I strongly believe that corruption not force, dishonesty towards the unjust laws not honor in enforcing their supremacy, are what will eventually make peace prevail. It is tautological that justice, peace and prosperity can't win against the interest of the mighty — but they can probably win more easily by making the mighty interested in justice, peace and prosperity than by trying to rise those interested in justice, peace and prosperity against the mighty.
Happened already
Happened to Gaul before it was called France. Also happened to Poland. Multiple times. Though they wouldn't dare give weapons to the conquered, so no drafting for a few generations.
(Anonymous)
You have to be able to fight by yourself
> win against the interest of the mighty
>
It's tautological only for those who are already prepared to be enslaved, not for those who would never accept it !
If they are, mighty people are only mighty because of their spirit, and material might weights (much) less than the ability to risk your life because you would rather die than being ruled.
It's true that commerce and comfort makes people sweet and lenient: of course they have principles, but as you said, they would rather pay somebody else to do the risky job, eh ? But such arrangements cannot last long, for those who you empower will soon discover that if you have no guts to fight by yourself, it's less risky for them to rule you, rather than fighting your enemies.
There is no substitute for the resolve to carry on the fight by yourself, resolve which first and foremost, has to exists inside your mind. You don't have it, it seems.
This being said, I would not disagree with somebody who would tell me that I have to be extremely careful, especially when clever demagogues tell fairy tales about the joys of going to war (very often for the only sake of their own interests).
Goals and Means
Surviving and/or preserving what you care for is a goal.
With your usual confusion, you'll sacrifice the goal to the means.
(Anonymous)
Re: Goals and Means
>
It's not only a means: you cannot replace the ability to fight by yourself, you cannot delegate this without harming your own ability to be free, your own ability to really experience freedom.
And in my opinion, the ability to be free is not a means, it's an end.
This being said, fighting is an ability one must exert in a very wise way, especially, very often, abstention is better. But if you don't own the ability in the first place, you are not the person in control, thus you can decide nothing anyway.
This is precisely where the problem is: there are things money cannot buy, and when people cannot understand this, they don't realize the risk of becoming ruled by those providing a "service" to them (a service they depend on, of course). In this respect, being able to change your provider changes nothing to the dependency, which remains: this is also another place where your fancy ideas about monopolies are way too imprecise to be effective, IMHO.
> Surviving and/or preserving what you care for is a goal.
>
That's your opinion, this is not mine. Sometimes sacrifice makes more sense.
This is exactly where lies the difference between your shopkeeper's "morals", which desperately tries to reduce everything to something one can measure, count, and the spirit which creates civilizations, which aims at being able to grasp the world as a whole.
> With your usual confusion, you'll sacrifice the goal to the means.
>
You imagine that your ideas are absolute truths on the one hand, and on the other hand you suppose the point of view of your interlocutor. Am I more confused than you ? I'm not sure.
Re: Goals and Means
[Fighting is] not only a means: you cannot replace the ability to fight by yourself
It's still a means, even when it is the only means available.
Indeed, there are (very bad) times when fighting yourself is the only means left to survive. And still, the price to pay is a exactly that, a price — to be accounted negatively in the cost/benefit analysis leading to choosing your strategy. Unless you're a professional soldier who enjoys it (and even then!) you better minimize the fighting. If you're no pro, you definitely should better avoid it all. And yes, preparation is also often a good deterrent to avoid it — and is still a cost.
And in my opinion, the ability to be free is not a means, it's an end.
For the proper definition of "free", certainly. But there is no "absolute" freedom, and one has to pick one's fights. For those enemies you won't fight — surrender, don't die.
if you don't own the ability in the first place, you are not the person in control, thus you can decide nothing anyway.
Even if you can't fight directly yourself, there is a whole lot that you can control. Making yourself out of reach of your enemies, for one, or under their radar. Paying proxies to fight for you. Manipulating your enemies into fighting each other. etc. Unless of course you're arguing that only individuals who personally own an H-bomb at home qualify as being in control.
This is precisely where the problem is: there are things money cannot buy, and when people cannot understand this, they don't realize the risk of becoming ruled by those providing a "service" to them (a service they depend on, of course). In this respect, being able to change your provider changes nothing to the dependency, which remains: this is also another place where your fancy ideas about monopolies are way too imprecise to be effective, IMHO.
You obviously do not understand what monopoly and competition mean. And the fact that you are the one introducing the orthogonal concept of money where it is irrelevant shows that you probably misunderstand basic economics. WRT monopoly, see my essay Government and Microsoft: a Libertarian View on Monopolies. WRT money, see the essays by Frederic Bastiat.
> Surviving and/or preserving what you care for is a goal.
That's your opinion, this is not mine. Sometimes sacrifice makes more sense.
Well, supposing that you and all that you care for are destroyed because of your act, just what is it that you're sacrificing FOR? Once again, the sacrifice is the negative part in the account, and there better be a positive part. Preserving what you care for is that positive part, the goal. The judeo-christian morality of "sacrifice" (amplified in the muslim jihad) is a crazy idea, a viral meme by which crooks manipulate the gullible, and crazy people do crazy things.
Ad hominem
BTW, are you preaching what you're saying? Which government do you live under? Are you the member of an armed resistance cell fighting back at the government oppressing you? Or do you believe your government is not oppressing you at all?
This is exactly where lies the difference between your shopkeeper's "morals", which desperately tries to reduce everything to something one can measure, count, and the spirit which creates civilizations, which aims at being able to grasp the world as a whole.
Insults won't get you far here or anywhere else. Even less when they go completely amiss. Who's introducing measure and counting? Who's unable to make a qualitative holistic distinction between the positive and the negative?
> With your usual confusion, you'll sacrifice the goal to the means.
You imagine that your ideas are absolute truths on the one hand, and on the other hand you suppose the point of view of your interlocutor. Am I more confused than you ? I'm not sure.
Duh, every honest person thinks what he says is the truth. Are you trying to insult me by calling me honest? Yes, it's OK to make educated guesses at what the other person may think. In this case, I successfully predicted you'd advocate sacrifice!