Rules

onacruse

Rules (speaking in the human sense) were developed since Adam first met Eve, and have been evolving ever since. Many such rules eventually become laws, though most are first subsumed as "natural" behavioralism.

Rules (speaking in the theistic sense) are dictated by a Higher Moral Being. These rules become inexorably encrusted with age and superstition.

Rules (speaking in the practical sense) are "what works for the time, and people of that time."

So: Are rules inherently bad?

If not, then can rules justifiably change?

Craig (of the "has several rulers on his desk" class)

minimus

Rules are made to be broken and changed. I see nothing wrong with rules and order.Since the concept of making/having rules is not inherently bad or wrong, why question if rules can justifiably change?

shotgun

Rules require enforcement or they are not rules only suggestions. You must police yourself or others to maintain these rules.

Having rules is not inherently bad but enforcing them on others is the trick and always has been.

jgnat

Dad gets passionate about rules. And rule makers. He says we only have to write stuff like that down when things are screwing up. If everybody acts in a principled and trusting manner, no rules are needed.

Dad liberated me from the bureacratic mindset with this revelation. He says, "Don't read the rule, what is the principle behind it? Why did they need to make the rule in the first place? If you are not breaking the principle, you are not breaking the rule."

After that, my work with the government is liberating. I don't break any principles, but I fear no retribution for bending the rules.

Carmel

Hey Craige,

Ya here about the guy that had 12 inches but didn't use it as a rule?

caveman who wonders why they're on his deskkkkk

onacruse

minimus:

Since the concept of making/having rules is not inherently bad or wrong, why question if rules can justifiably change?

You have yourself often questioned (on this db, and elsewhere) about the changing of the "rules" (posting limits, etc.) But if such "rules" are not "inherently bad or wrong," then on what basis do you feel justified to express such complaints?

shotgun:

Having rules is not inherently bad but enforcing them on others is the trick and always has been.

Yes. And the interpretation of the enforcement of such rules is, shall we say, subject to interpretation; no one is exempt, and no one can completely justify themselves in the enforcement of such rules.

jgnat, your observation about principles and rules is poignant. One of the very few things that I can still respect about WTS is the distinction that was made (I think it was in the 60s) about 'law vs. principle.' Which cuts right to my point: Which is more important? Rules, or principles? If rules rule, then no one has a legitimate basis to complain. If principles rule, then it becomes a matter of mutual understanding and concensus.

Valis

'law vs. principle.'

all I know is that the other day on Law & Order SVU they said "onanism"....naturally I could do no less than follow the rules of friendship and think of you.

Sincerely,

District Overbeer