This post was written 12 years ago (2013), back when the last Song of Ice and Fire book—published two years prior—was #5. Thank goodness the series is now complete, so we can see for sure how all the wars turn out. Right? Right??
What a brilliant analysis! I’m going to suggest to my Israeli relatives that they could solve all their problems with unruly neighbors if they just tried pacifism.
Had they adopted pacifism, one wonders how they would have resisted the Army of the Dead. No skills. No experience. No weapons. Arya certainly wouldn't have been a trained assassin
Your argument is unlikely to appeal to someone familiar with the Holocaust, or even October 7th. Sometimes defeat is so awful that even war is easily justified.
What about when defeat is only a 50% chance of the Holocaust? I don't think most people would have much doubt.
Doubt if he had stayed home his fate would have been any different in the long run. Gandhi urged pacifism but didn't always practice it. He thought The Jews should have offered their throats to Hitler to "shame him". Don't think that would have worked out well for them. Go watch the speech Jack Nicholson's speech in "A Few Good Men." Pacifism is always urged by people who expect other people to save them.
Most wars are foolish. WW I, Vietnam. Others, The Civil War, WW II, Korea were not.
The problem is that you need to draw the line somewhere. Say Robb did capitulate to the Lannisters after Joffrey kills his father, and didn't raise the North in rebellion. What should Robb do if Joffrey then escalates and raises taxes on North? If Joffrey trumps up charges and demands executions against more of Robb's family, like Arya and Sansa? If you always choose the pacifist option, you'll be a boiled frog where eventually the long term consequences really are worse than the short term consequences of war. Kings would be happy to make all their subjects slaves, where 100% of excess production goes solely to the King and a small army. The only thing keeping the King from setting a taxation rate of 100% after necessities are met is the threat of violent rebellion.
I think international war diplomacy is basically like a repeated ultimatum game. Yes, in a one off ultimatum game, taking what you can even if it's unfair or unjust is rational. But in a repeated series, reputation matters, and taking even a few very bad trades to establish a better long term trade is worth it.
I suggest another reason for the Substantial Benefit rule based on the smae general idea as the Winner's Curse: we should expect overoptimism about the net benefit of wars. Wars will occur when both sides are overoptimistic, so rationally each side should scale back its estimates of net benefit. This is also related to the idea of regression to the mean. See my very readable article below, which also says why you should not marry a lady who just seems slightly above your desirability threshold, and why you should expect to be disappointed in your first year of marriage.
``Managerial Conservatism and Rational Information Acquisition, '' Journal of Economics and Management Strategy (Spring 1992), 1(1): 175-202. Conservative managerial behavior can be rational and profit- maximizing. If the valuation of innovations contains white noise and the status quo would be preferred to random innovation, then any innovation that does not appear to be substantially better than the status quo should be rejected. The more successful the firm, the higher the threshold for accepting innovation should be, and the greater the conservative bias. Other things equal, more successful firms will spend less on research, adopt fewer innovations, and be less likely to advance the industry 's best practice. http://rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen_92JEMS.conservatism.pdf
The problem with broad pacifism is that it’s unstable. When encountering a peaceful society, a war-like tribe’s odds of success are high.
Productive people who want no part in politics face the same issue.
This post was written 12 years ago (2013), back when the last Song of Ice and Fire book—published two years prior—was #5. Thank goodness the series is now complete, so we can see for sure how all the wars turn out. Right? Right??
What a brilliant analysis! I’m going to suggest to my Israeli relatives that they could solve all their problems with unruly neighbors if they just tried pacifism.
Had they adopted pacifism, one wonders how they would have resisted the Army of the Dead. No skills. No experience. No weapons. Arya certainly wouldn't have been a trained assassin
Your argument is unlikely to appeal to someone familiar with the Holocaust, or even October 7th. Sometimes defeat is so awful that even war is easily justified.
What about when defeat is only a 50% chance of the Holocaust? I don't think most people would have much doubt.
Doubt if he had stayed home his fate would have been any different in the long run. Gandhi urged pacifism but didn't always practice it. He thought The Jews should have offered their throats to Hitler to "shame him". Don't think that would have worked out well for them. Go watch the speech Jack Nicholson's speech in "A Few Good Men." Pacifism is always urged by people who expect other people to save them.
Most wars are foolish. WW I, Vietnam. Others, The Civil War, WW II, Korea were not.
When you say "most," have you done an actual audit?
First define "war" vs "conflict". Next state the purpose of the "war".
Many wars are not worth surviving. But NO WAR is worth dying for, or in.
The immediate consequence is noted: if your children are at immediate hazard of rape, torture, and murder, they are not worth saving.
Not my children, though.
The problem is that you need to draw the line somewhere. Say Robb did capitulate to the Lannisters after Joffrey kills his father, and didn't raise the North in rebellion. What should Robb do if Joffrey then escalates and raises taxes on North? If Joffrey trumps up charges and demands executions against more of Robb's family, like Arya and Sansa? If you always choose the pacifist option, you'll be a boiled frog where eventually the long term consequences really are worse than the short term consequences of war. Kings would be happy to make all their subjects slaves, where 100% of excess production goes solely to the King and a small army. The only thing keeping the King from setting a taxation rate of 100% after necessities are met is the threat of violent rebellion.
I think international war diplomacy is basically like a repeated ultimatum game. Yes, in a one off ultimatum game, taking what you can even if it's unfair or unjust is rational. But in a repeated series, reputation matters, and taking even a few very bad trades to establish a better long term trade is worth it.
I suggest another reason for the Substantial Benefit rule based on the smae general idea as the Winner's Curse: we should expect overoptimism about the net benefit of wars. Wars will occur when both sides are overoptimistic, so rationally each side should scale back its estimates of net benefit. This is also related to the idea of regression to the mean. See my very readable article below, which also says why you should not marry a lady who just seems slightly above your desirability threshold, and why you should expect to be disappointed in your first year of marriage.
``Managerial Conservatism and Rational Information Acquisition, '' Journal of Economics and Management Strategy (Spring 1992), 1(1): 175-202. Conservative managerial behavior can be rational and profit- maximizing. If the valuation of innovations contains white noise and the status quo would be preferred to random innovation, then any innovation that does not appear to be substantially better than the status quo should be rejected. The more successful the firm, the higher the threshold for accepting innovation should be, and the greater the conservative bias. Other things equal, more successful firms will spend less on research, adopt fewer innovations, and be less likely to advance the industry 's best practice. http://rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen_92JEMS.conservatism.pdf