It occurred to me today that rules have been around as long as people have been around, and there’s a reason for that.

Yesterday, in Part 1 of this post, I opened with a discussion of how the creation of rules, after the fact, to try to control the behavior of people only really works in situations where there is a significant deterrent (a stick) to violating the new regulations. Also, I discussed the idea that there are people who are following their own internal sets of rules, that don’t need to be governed by outside forces for that very reason.

But, since this topic seems to fascinate me so, let’s keep the discussion going!

* * *

When you think about rules, and why people follow them, a lot of the time, compliance is the result of fear of punishment. I don’t want to end up with a $200 speeding ticket, so I obey the speed limits. I don’t want my dad to spank me, so I am sure to be respectful to my mother. But, each of these situations assumes an authority who carries a stick that is big enough to scare a person into compliance.

The other side of the coin looks like this: I will break the rules because the stick that exists isn’t a big enough deterrent to keep me from doing what it is that I really want to do. The guy who really wants to know what it feels like to go 110 miles per hour down the freeway might be totally willing to pay $200 for the experience.

So, we understand that there is a balance that must be weighed on each side of the scale; on one side of the scale is the question of whether or not a person is really desiring to do a certain (bad) thing, while the other side of the scale is the question of whether or not a deterrent (the stick) is scary enough to tip the scale.

Of course, this scale doesn’t serve to explain all of the examples that we have in our society of rule-breaking and rule-following, but it explains a lot of them. When people don’t follow the rules, you’ve either attempted to create a rule that seeks to condemn actions that are basic to the human experience (try punishing people into not breathing, for example), or your stick isn’t big enough.

* * *

It used to be, not so long ago, that people thought that they were responsible to an authority of ultimate power. This authority ruled over the peasants and the kings alike. Levels of authority were of relatively little importance, with respect to the question of whether or not one should follow the rules, since this authority was in a position of power over all.

Of course, I’m referring to God.

Now, whether or not you believe in God –Christians, like me, most certainly do, but others may not– the understanding that we were all beholden to an ultimate authority figure, it had a way of holding people to a certain level of responsibility, because they thought that they were going to have to answer for their actions, not to a judge, or a police officer, or a grand jury, but to someone whose judgement was not to be escaped, whose eyes were always watching.

More recently, however, the tendency in first world countries, to leave the faith of the forefathers has resulted in several issues. One of the most significant problems that can arise out of this change can be summarized by this question:

“Who stops the authority figures from breaking the rules?”

Historically, authority figures understood that they were subject to an ultimate authority, even if they weren’t subject to any other human authority, and that –at least sometimes– kept humans with a significant amount of power in check.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed or not, but there have been –in recent memory– a few examples of human authority figures who don’t seem to be beholden to anyone, in heaven or on earth.

* * *

Once the authority figures have decided that they aren’t going to follow the rules, or that they’re only going to follow the rules that they believe to be appropriate, then you start to have a breakdown in the system.

I’ve noticed examples of law enforcement officers recently deciding that they are only going to obey the laws, that they are charged with enforcing, when it works out best for them.

Of course, since there isn’t anyone in authority over them, they may be able to get away with this, for a while. But, when those under authority notice the example that is being set for them –an example that includes rule-breaking in it– there ends up being an integrity issue when those who don’t follow the rules intend to enforce rule-following by those under their authority.

I don’t know about you, but it’s SIGNIFICANTLY harder for me to follow the rules that are being set by the people who don’t actually follow the rules, either.

Another unfortunate side-effect of our abandonment of a faith in God is currently playing out all across the country, as cases of police brutality and administrative corruption continue to grab headlines.

Who can stop the authority figures from breaking the rules?

I was talking to a friend, just this evening, about the Jacob Blake case, and he said to me, “It just blows my mind that police officers continue to exercise brutality, especially in light of the current climate against police brutality. Do they really think that they can continue to get away with it?”

Apparently, they do believe that they will continue to get away with it.

* * *

When it’s all said and done, and whether or not you believe that God is keeping score, we should all be answering to an internal moral code that says that certain things are allowed, while certain other things are not.

Unfortunately, as time goes by, I am starting to become convinced that there are people out there that operate under no such moral code in their lives. And, while that reality might not be so disturbing if we are talking about Joe Blow from Idaho who has no real authority or social influence in his life, it becomes a much larger problem when we are dealing with people who are in charge of upholding the law or advancing the nation or raising the children who will become the future of the country.

I mentioned earlier that the world would be a better place if people were compliant, not because they were forced to be, but because they wanted to contribute to a society that was moving in a positive direction of growth and development. Unfortunately, I don’t feel like that’s where we are now.