Rules are a starting point, not the final answer

Kids make up rules for games.

“Got you!”
“No, I was still touching the base, remember?”
“Well I’ve got the talisman in my pocket so that doesn’t count.”
“Fine, but from now on you can only use that once per game.”
“OK, but no tag-backs for five seconds.”

Instead of playing by the rules, they’re playing with the rules — playing with the game itself. Changing the game is part of the fun. We can still do this.

Rules set expectations and the terms of the game. They’re a useful starting point, but they’re not the final answer.

Governments and businesses make rules, but those rules are as random as children’s games, created by a similar process. A few people in an office, tired and wanting to break for lunch, agreed on something and haven’t thought of it since. An assistant typed it into an official document. The person enforcing it just learned about it last week, and doesn’t really care, but doesn’t want to get in trouble. They treat these rules as true because it makes their job easier. But they’re negotiable.

Rules can be ignored. Breaking a rule can be rational and moral, if you understand the rule’s purpose, and no one is harmed.

My friend was part of a student protest in Chicago thirty-five years ago, when he was eighteen, and was arrested for a few hours. Thirty years later, he and his wife went for a vacation in Australia. Upon arrival, the visa forms ask if you’ve ever been arrested. He ticked “yes”. The border control guy at the airport wouldn’t let him in the country and sent them back on the next flight to Chicago. They were devastated. Thousands of dollars lost. Vacation ruined. Before they left, the officer said, “Next time, make it easier for everyone. Just tick ‘no’.”

Rules can be changed. Society doesn’t want rules to change, since most people don’t want the trouble. But improving the rules over time is necessary. Someone has to do it.

When the founding fathers of the United States of America were drafting the constitution, it was assumed this new country would have three, six, or twelve presidents. When someone proposed having only one president, most delegates were against it, since they had just left a kingdom, and wanted nothing like a king. The issue was debated for weeks before finally agreeing, by a 7-to-3 vote, to have just one president. It’s a reminder that the way things are is arbitrary, and not the only way.

The world is as negotiable as a flea market in Marrakesh. Only a fool doesn’t haggle.