Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
Simply put...would this forum, for example, be as good as it is...without rules? No...I don't think so. Rules provide boundaries. Without enforced rules then everyone gets to do his, or her, own thing, with no checks or balances, and anarchy soon reigns supreme. Not here, of course. That's why I'm here. I'm Bill O'Rights...and I enforce the rules.  |
*nod*, the existance of Rules makes the moderators here more powerful, because the threat of punishment is more efficient than actually having to punish people. The same is true in society -- the existance of Rules makes the police more powerful than they would be otherwise, because the
threat of police action when you break the rules is communicated somewhat effectively.
Rules make the enforcers more powerful -- Rules act as force multipliers on the use of, or potential to use, force.
Making Rules is useful to enforcers.
I agree with all of this.
But, I cannot grasp how the Rules themselves make any act right or wrong.
"He knew it was against the rules", used to justify punishment, seems to me to be no justification at all. Either what was done was wrong and deserves the punishment, or it was not wrong or the punishment is excessive. "The man said he'd get shot if he didn't hand over his money".
The fact the act was against the Rules can place judgement on the Rule itself -- if a non-wrong act is against the Rules, then the act of making the Rule, as any other threat, is an evil.
Similarly, if you say "stop choking that man, or I will shoot you" is a threat. So is "if you murder someone, I will put you in jail." Some threats are good -- so some Rules are good to make.
But, how is obeying Rules just because they are Rules any more right than bowing to any other use of force or threat?