Choosing a Hill to Die On (Or Knowing When to Give Up)

Determining whether things are worth the trouble is an interesting process.  It has been on my mind a lot recently, and I have approached the concept from a variety of very different contexts.  In examining faith, a book I was reading pointed out that contrasting creation vs. evolution is not the hill to die on (the ground to be held at all costs), compared to the question of whether or not Jesus was the son of God.  Some battles are not worth winning, because they are just a distraction from the larger issues at hand.

I just had dinner with someone who was describing all of the steps they had taken to protect themselves from identity thieves.  He is concerned that someone will break into his home, and take documents that will allow them to steal his identity.  While this is technically possible, it seems ludicrous to worry about it.  He was telling me how he hid things in different places, and camouflaged his safe to appear to be a box of old Christmas decorations.  All this effort was motivated by the long trip he is about to take, in case someone breaks into his unoccupied home while he is gone.  Considering he will be gone for a whole week, I am betting against it.  I am leaving for longer than that tomorrow morning, and have made no preparations besides packing.  It’s just not worth the trouble; I am willing to take the risk.

In a more literal case, we can take a look at it in the context of self-defense.  I recently ceased to be a member of the unarmed populace.  A .22 is a good option to start with, since it is relatively cheap, and is perfectly sufficient for most uses.  It can take care of coyotes and skunks if needed, and is enough to defend oneself against an unarmed intruder.  In an armed conflict though, it will be outmatched by nearly any other option.

Does that mean I need a bigger gun?  Well, at the rate arms are being acquired by both citizens and the government right now, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a large scale conflict in the foreseeable future.  From a philosophical standpoint, I side in favor of a stronger "public," with the government serving "at the will of the people."  That is what being a patriot was about during the American Revolution.

But if it came down to a conflict like that again, hundreds of years later, it would go down very differently.  The cost was high a few hundred years ago, but would be much greater now.  This begs the question: am I adequately prepared to survive in that scenario?  And more importantly, would I want to?  If I ever get into a situation where my .22 is "not powerful enough" for the adversary at hand, I don't know if I really want to face the outcome of that conflict, even if I do manage to prevail.

I am not the type of guy to give up easily, so this is not in-line with my usual thinking.  But I have persevered in past situations to the point where the resultant pain wasn't worth the trouble, and nothing appears to have been accomplished in the bigger picture.  This causes one to re-think things a bit, depending on what's on the line, and maintain a wider perspective on things.