Don’t follow the rules…

Posted on by

This post is for Rachael – whom some of you know is wont to prick and prickle me from time to time – which I enjoy.

She took me to task for urging my students to not follow rules. She thought I should have said instead: “think outside the box.”

i don’t know much about you Rachael, but you strike me as being someone who follows rules. You probably don’t know much about me, but I don’t. I say: fuck the rules. Always have, and always will –

Implicit in your comment about needing to follow the rules is that the rules are always correct. And that they should be followed without question. Because a rule is a rule, it is by definition something sacrosanct which should be adhered to for the benefit of the individual, and society as a whole.

I don’t buy that.

I question every rule. Because I’m suspicious of most rules. 

I believe most rules are foisted upon us by people with limited imaginations to control and subjugate individual spirit and creative endeavour. This is what Kafka wrote about so powerfully. So too George Orwell.

Read Steve Jobs’ biography – my God, he broke so many damn rules. And the world is a better place for it. Read Edwin Land’s biography – he illegally broke into school science labs at night when he was a kid so he could practice chemistry away from the constraints of his teachers. He subsequently invented polaroid glasses and the polaroid camera.

Jonas Salk broke rules to find the vaccine for polio. De Vinci stole corpses to do autopsies so he could understand human anatomy, breaking every criminal and religious law in the book. Galileo outraged the church at the time by suggesting that the earth revolve around the sun. Some of mankind’s greatest scientific breakthroughs have come from people not following the rules.

Albert Einstein, called “The James Dean of Science,” because of his rule breaking, said: Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.

In my field – cinema – following rules leads to mediocrity. The startling works of art come from artists who break the conventional rules. This is what I’m talking about when I speak to students. Scorsese broke so many rules of cinema in his early works – so did Fellini, and Antonioni, and Jean Luc Goddard. The French New Wave revolutionised cinema by not following the conventional rules of the time. They caused a huge fuss.

At the Cannes Film Festival, there’s a division called Directors Fortnight, which each year launches some of the world’s best films. Directors Fortnight was created by enfant terrible film directors in the French cinema who railed against the staid and conventional rules of Official Competition. They believed those rules were too constrictive to the art form.

But you can’t live your life breaking rules in one part of your life and not other parts of your life. You have Woody Allen having an affair with his daughter… good for him is what I say. And you have Steve Jobs perpetually parking in handicapped zones and driving way above the speed limit. It comes with the territory. Genius ain’t nice.

If you say: think outside the box, I would say stomp on the box. You shouldn’t have been in a box in the first place.

Eintstein

49 thoughts on “Don’t follow the rules…”

  1. I am constantly following the posts on this wonderful site (but until now only posted once). Thank you, Bill.

    This post kind of touches a nerve with me. In my childhood, rules were drilled into me – do this, don’t do that – in short: conform to be what society will be comfortable with.

    Ever since, I have tried to get outside this box – and hope that I have eventually succeeded in many ways. But lore learnt in childhood’s formative years tends to sit set heavily on you for the rest of your life.

    And I remember the early French new wave films – went to see every one of them (kind of dates me) – and Fellini.

    So still trying – as best I can – to not follow rules – to think outside the box – whichever you choose to call it, to me it is the same maxime.

    Best annelise (Denmark)

    Like

    • Hi Annelise,

      Thank you for joining the discussion – and lovely to hear from you.

      Please feel free to join in more often if you feel so inclined. Your comments here will always be appreciated and respected.

      This is such a tricky area, because of course there are certain rules that we all have to live by: certain moral codes of behaviour, certain rules of society.

      For instance, we all have to pay our taxes. But explain to me why someone earring $60,000 a year, and struggling to make ends meet, has to pay 30% tax, while someone like Rupert Murdoch, who earns $60,000 in ten minutes, or probably quicker, pays 5% tax? Or probably less.

      Where is the equanimity in that?

      In other words, rules aren’t equal for everyone. Take the so-called Rule of Law.

      You can literally get away with murder if you have the money to engage the right legal minds. Death row is full of poor people. You don’t find many 1%-ers on death row.

      As parents we try to find a balance between installing rules in our children, yet also encouraging creative thought. It’s not an easy balance to find. Sometimes, because of an early constrictive environment , it takes us a lifetime to break free of the rules instilled in us by strict parents or an unbending educational system.

      Some people find their true creative spirit, and leanings, by rebelling against these kind of strictures. Others are cowered by them, and won’t emerge from their chrysalis until another turn of the cycle – another lifetime. Or many lifetimes.

      I follow certain rules. Of course I do. I don’t have any points against my license, and I’ve been driving for 40years, so I must. But driving back from Queensland the other day, on the long flat back roads through central New South Wales, I fanged it. No way was I going to sit on 100kms /hr.

      I opened it up. Had a great time. I love going fast.

      Way I look it, rules are a percentage game. I was 95% sure there’d be no cops around. And that it was safe driving.

      Stupid? Perhaps. Irresponsible? Perhaps.

      But I haven’t slept with my daughter…

      Bill

      Like

  2. Bill,

    I think this is a fabulous post and maybe your best regardless of the fact that it might have been prompted by Rachel’s prickling comments. I have been following with interest all of the exchanges between you and Rachel since your early challenge to her of coming out of the shadows if she was to criticize you. One of the great things about your blog is that people are truly able to say what is on their mind without fear of being ostracized for stepping on another’s toes.

    Rachel has been calling it like she sees it, and because of your openness, that has been and I suspect will remain her right and privilege, but on the other hand, you also have that right and I see this post as nothing more than your rebuttal and an essay on abandoning the rules for the furtherance of mankind in every front. Sure, we have to have certain order and procedure to keep mankind from living in total chaos, which we probably would, but you have given such wonderful examples. Your knowledge of so many people embarrasses me at my lack thereof. You challenge me to be better and learn more.

    I too have lived most of my life outside the rules. I used to have a little sign on my motorcycle helmet that said “I live life my way”. Sounds arrogant and in some ways might have been, but that is pretty much what I did, and I had some pretty extreme highs because of it, but on the other hand, I had some pretty deep lows also. Each decision along the way had a consequence, either good or bad. Nothing in my education has been free. I just hope I have learned something from the expensive lessons.

    Rachel, I think you are well meaning and who am I to judge you or your intentions, but I have seen this coming for a long time and wondered why it did not happen sooner. You seem to be a strongly opinionated woman and that is a great way to live so long as you do not have the need to force those opinions on others. I know you will continue with the blog and hope you do because you have a lot to offer the rest of us. Well meaning as you may be, I seriously doubt you will never be able to influence or sway Bill’s thinking, and why should you. He is one of the most astute people I have met in my entire life, and my objective is to learn from him, and that from him being exactly who he is.

    I agree with Bill, “what box”. I have never fit in one and never will.

    Steve

    Like

    • Thank you Steve, on all fronts.

      It’s 3am here, so I won’t give a fulsome response – just to say I value our friendship, and I have as much, if not more, to learn from you, as you might from me.

      Bill

      Like

      • Then learn to go to bed and get good sleep, though I fear changing your MO would curtail your creativity, so just keep on keeping on. You can sleep when you are old like me.

        Your Mate, Steve

        Like

          • I don’t know. The time I heard it was 20 years ago from Corky, an interesting member of the notorious Bandidos motorcycle gang. He must have been well read. I liked him a lot. 🙂

            Like

          • Bikers can read books too you know Steve…

            You do. (You read mine!)

            But mine wasn’t really a book. Not like Chandler. Man that guy could write…

            🐗

            Bill

            Like

      • Bill,

        You inspired me to read a bit about Raymond Chandler. Certainly I have heard of some of his titles, but never heard of him. Interesting and tragic life, it appears, as the case I believe of so many creative people, present company excluded. I still don’t know if he coined the phrase in discussion. I found it interesting that after all of his literary and cinema success, he left an estate of only $60,000, if I read correctly. That would be another tragedy.

        Steve

        Like

        • Yes, but you measure his legacy in monetary terms. Money means nothing. Money is no measure of success, or greatness.

          Van Gogh died a pauper. Tchaikovsky was always doing gigs for money, and died poor. Most of his ballets, which at the time were considered an inferior form of musical composition to symphonies, were done as money raising ventures.

          Chandler left a wealth of things for us all, for generations to come, that can’t be measure in a bank balance. That’s the mistake that most people make – thinking that their worth is a function of their wealth.

          Look at the hedge fund managers who brought on the GFC – they made a lot of money, but what did they contribute to society? Only pain and suffering for millions of people.

          Bill

          Like

          • Bill,

            I am not measuring his wealth by money, only astounded that with all that success he did not have more. I remain so. But, as you point out, he is not alone.

            I think I appear to give you a false impression of my relationship with money. Make no mistake, I like making it, but that is definitely not what my life is about today. I don’t think it ever was. I made lots of money in my early thirties, perhaps in spite of myself. I never saw it coming, and frankly did not know how to manage it when it did, and there were big liabilities attached to the windfalls. Thank goodness it has never been about the money, or at this time I would be severely depressed knowing what has slipped through my own fingers. I don’t focus on the losses. I don’t dwell on it. It’s just part of who I am. I would not mind having a redo, but who wouldn’t. Of course there is no guarantee of doing it any differently.

            When I have mentioned a book from me, I have said that I would not do it unless I thought it had the potential of being a commercial success. That is probably the main reason I have never attempted to do it. To be a commercial success, I would have to have a story that many people could relate to in order for it to be a commercial success, and though my life and experiences are interesting cocktail fodder, they are not in my opinion compelling enough to interest many people. So, I am not driven to get my story on paper; I don’t see any particular value in it for others to read; and the only reason I would do so is if I deemed that there was a compelling story that would have some value to others, and if that were the case, then it might have a chance at being a commercial success. At this point, I have yet to attempt the first paragraph. I am not sure if this makes any sense, but I regret that I have left the impression that money is a driving factor for me. I don’t think that is true. I hope not.

            Steve

            Like

          • Hi Steve,

            No, on the contrary, because you’ve had money, and lots of it, you are able to see it for what it really is – a tool. Nothing more. Not a measure, not a validation – but a means to achieve either good or bad.

            Bill Gates and his wife are doing wonderful philanthropic work with their wealth, for instance.

            No, I only posted in the way I did to make the point that the measure of a man’s life is something greater than an estate. In no way was I implying that I thought you were driven by money.

            Nope -you have truly transcended that. I know that. You are now able to see the folly of wealth, because you have acquired that wisdom.

            I’m sorry Steve – I didn’t mean to give you the wrong impression.

            But just to follow this line of thought a bit more, and then I’ll go back to sleep, I promise! 🙂

            Someone’s life I think is not measured in legacies like great works of art, or achievements – but in the way that person lived their life day to day. The happiness, joy, love, respect, gratitude they brought into the world with each breath they took.

            That’s the true measure, and worth, of a lived life.

            And now, being 4:45am here, and given I have to drive 300kms back to Mudgee soon, I will say goodnight’

            Bill

            Like

          • I couldn’t agree more and the key is how one lives ones life today. We all have days we wish we could do differently, but why think about them when we can think about being the best we can be today. That is all we have and the only part of our legacy we can control.

            Night, night.

            Steve

            Like

    • Steve,

      Chandler died in ’59, didn’t he? That $60,000 would be the equivalent to about half-a-mill, maybe a bit less now. Not bad for a guy who started writing in his 40’s.

      Brendan

      Like

      • Who knows what Hemingway’s estate was worth?

        Or Picasso’s?

        Or George Gershwin’s?

        It means nothing. All that matters is that these guys, to use Steve Jobs’ phrase, “put a dent in the universe.”

        Bill

        Like

  3. Well, Bill, there are Rules… and then there are “rules”.

    The Rules are really quite simple, very powerful and largely auto-enforcing. By which I mean that if you break them, karma and/or your community will be having a very direct chat with you. Examples of these Rules would be the Ten Commandments which were later superseded by the Two Great Commandments. Adhere to either of these and follow-up is just common-sense attention to detail.

    “rules” – think tax codes, traffic rules, accounting rules, food safety, etc ad nauseam, which are added to the books in many places at the rate of thousands per day. Following these rules does not “lead to mediocrity” as you have stated – – it absolutely enforces it as THE goal. Innovation, creativity and enterprise are stifled; cartels build moats around their businesses by grabbing the power of government. (It also criminalizes almost all of us who do not have time to read the regs as they spew forth from the word processors of lobbyists and their law firms. We’re all too busy being tax donkeys for those who need more bombs and depleted uranium to rain on brown people who might be living on top of “our” oil and other strategic resources. Of course, they deserve it – “they hate us for our freedoms”, too.)

    The justification for the “rules” is to keep us all “safe”, enforce “fairness” or (if all else fails) they are “for the children”. Well, the promise has obviously not been fulfilled what with conversion of citizens to “consumers”, rampant untruth in labeling of foods, the ongoing destruction of the global financial system, a parallel destruction of the ecosystem, unbalanced economies, and the incredibly accelerating transfer of wealth from the ordinary people to the few hundred elite who foster adoption of all these “rules”.

    “Anarchy” has been given a bad name by the psychopaths who wish to retain their power. Rather than a world of zombie motorcycle hordes, it might actually look more like a collection of self-organizing collectives. Has the Camino needed a government?

    I do not need a rebuttal claiming the need for maintaining Western civilization. Take a look around. Governments seem to be acting in a most uncivilized manner, and to much more detrimental effect, than us mass of common folk.

    A bit of research about “anarchy” would be nice before use of the word indiscriminately. It simply means “without rulers”. Don’t know about anybody else, but if I want a ruler that actually works – there’s usually some available in the school supply area of the store. Multiple colors – plastic or wood, something to fit everyone’s price range.

    Brendan

    Like

    • Brendan,

      You say so eloquently what I try to say simply, though I would say you were prompted to look further by this post than I was. Bravo. Steve

      Like

      • Steve,

        We were both writing at the same time; you hit “Post” sooner.

        Your post is fine. Had I seen it, I would have felt no more need to reply.

        Regarding “…looking further…” – – well, let’s just say that I have spent a lot of time being outraged by rules for about 40 years. Be it in health care, education, government and the corporate life… it always about control and monetizing of people.

        Brendan

        Like

      • Bill –

        I do not know whether a “rule-centric” person is a better or worse “kind of person” than the “rule-averse”. (Though the “rule-averse” are a lot more fun! Oops, that sounds judgmental. ) Family, culture and life experience each have an impact (nurture or not) on a person’s nature.

        Most folks just love themselves a hierarchy. Many are just not confronted with the absurdity of most rules often enough to begin to question them. It is very few that see exactly how short life is and want to live free in their creative pursuits while they have the chance.

        Brendan

        Like

        • Brendan –

          one of the greatest attributes a person can have is curiosity. Coupled with imagination, they can question and see how things can be better.

          To make things better, invariably it means breaking the rules.

          Bill

          Like

      • Bill –
        You state that only breaking rules gains improvement. I hope that we can agree that this is NOT the key issue.

        Invariably, the “rule”-makers derive their authority from people mandating them to “make things better”.

        Personally, I do NOT want anyone telling me how to improve or imposing their “improvement” upon me.

        Real improvement derives from a people unrestrained to engage in free cooperation to create and trade.

        Therefore, real improvement begins with a drastic reduction of “small r” rules.

        “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”
        (Winston Churchill )

        I think in any of our countries we’re way past that mark.

        Brendan

        Like

  4. If I may break in with my small voice, first, Bill: bravo! Since my fellow free school students and I lit our first cigarettes under the “No Smoking ” sign, I’ve been aligned with the rule breakers of the world. Obviously my first rebellious choice was tainted with poor judgement-cigarettes will kill you. But I still believe I had the right intention . Throughout my life, my heroes have been rule breakers, from Einstein to Aquinas,Picasso, John Cage and of course the greatest of all, Jesus Christ, who turned the world upside down by believing andteaching to love

    Like

    • to love, above all. (even this different computer hates WordPress.)I don’t see how we can change the world for the better, or dare to truly express our creativity without breaking the right rules. Common sense should be enough to guide us to not do things like murder. But it has to begin with a question :do you measure your worth in intrinsic or extrinsic terms? Thinking above money as the definitinof success or personal worth is a good place to start, but not the only one.I think knowing that is what made Steve and others like him, men of such integrity..ask yourself how much you can grow by conforming-the answer forces us to seek personal truth, beinning by burning the boxes we find ourselve trying to fit into.

      Like

  5. Also, Bill -I’ve just sent an email to your pgs gmail account-hope you find it there. Don’t know any other way but posting here to let you know.

    Like

  6. Galileo outraged the church at the time by suggesting that the earth revolve around the sun

    Copernicus, actually, and Copernicus hardly “outraged” the Church, given that he was a Catholic priest, and had received imprimatur and nihil obstat from his Bishop for the publication of his theory.

    Galileo outraged the Church by copiously insulting the Pope and the Roman Curia through acts of defiance and rebellion.

    —

    Meanwhile, I follow the rules that you have established for your blog, as well as those established for the Camino. 🙂

    —

    I believe most rules are foisted upon us by people with limited imaginations to control and subjugate individual spirit and creative endeavour. This is what Kafka wrote about so powerfully. So too George Orwell.

    This is a very romantic idea, but it is of course nonsensical.

    The Catholic position on this question is rather more nuanced — rules should be adhered to as a matter of course, BUT they must be defied when they become destructive or evil.

    This could be interpreted in multiple ways, but essentially we are not purposed to become the slaves of a rules list.

    —

    Art, of course, is created within a dynamic relationship between the artist and the rules of the Art.

    But then for an artist, an absolutely immaculate adherence to every applicable rule is in itself the breaking of the rule that rules are meant to be broken. viz. the incredible perfection of the short stories of Jorge Luis Borges.

    I don’t think there’s any rule stating that rules are not to be adhered to …

    Like

  7. I’ve read the post, but not the comments – but seeing as the post is more or less dedicated to me I’d like to acknowledge it. I still encourage my children to think outside the box. And at the same time I uphold the laws of the land (although, to be honest, if we lived under laws that prohibited my freedom in a detrimental way then I would either conscientiously object or move somewhere else) – you see, if a young girl had followed the laws, had not done drugs, had not driven an unwarranted car with bad tires, had not been speeding, then all of my children would have had the opportunity to meet their grandmother, not just the older four. And the youngest of those ones might actually remember her – she was not even a month old the day her grandmother was taken.
    This, of course, if only anecdotal. I do believe in following the laws based on principle too.
    But I’ve just been called for breakfast so that will have to wait!

    Like

  8. Breakfast over. Chocolate cake and orange choc chip ice cream – we had a birthday yesterday but could not get the whole family together due to work commitments so we celebrated this morning instead!
    While I disagree with “don’t follow the rules”, I also say “critique everything”. Of course this could lead to the danger of situational ethics, but I certainly do not want to encourage blind compliance with anything.
    Bill, I get the feeling that you think I’m a legalistic goody-two-shoes. My friends know me more for being one to push boundaries, to abhor the status quo, to live intentionally, to be counter-cultural, constantly swimming upstream, for being ridiculously idealistic, for asking way too many questions, thinking about everything, challenging probably too often. Now you know me a little better too! I’ll be coming back to this post to read all the comments – looks like an interesting conversation has ensued, but right now my walking shoes and the road are calling. Wish I had time to read it before walking so I could mull it over while I plod along!

    Like

    • Hi Rachael –

      I hope you had a good walk!

      What prompted my blog post was your comment:

      Dare I suggest you change your dont follow the rules to think outside the box so that you cant be accused of inciting anarchy? It takes away any possible ambiguity and surely as a journalist you would aim for clarity of expression. Or perhaps the desire to provoke is stronger;-)

      And please understand that I was in no way implying that you were a legalistic goody-two-shoes. From this blog I know you to be someone who constantly looks at things from all perspectives – who questions and probes and challenges and provokes. I like that. I respond to that. It keeps me on my toes, and keeps me honest 🙂

      I think anarchy is a good thing. I think we have to be more anarchistic. Only through anarchy does change happen. This of course though is contingent on your definition of anarchy –

      anarchy [an-er-kee] Show IPA noun 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king wasfollowed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil. 3. anarchism ( def 1 ) . 4. lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination:

      I prefer the 4th definition – a lack of obedience to an authority. An insubordination.

      Of course we need an adherence to the laws of the land. Otherwise there would be anarchy, as per definitions 1 & 2. I’m not talking about that – I’m talking about what you’re talking about – swimming upstream, as you say, pushing boundaries, abhorring the status quo. Your words.

      So, it seems like we’re saying the same thing –

      As for questioning my journalistic methods – you will notice that I always qualify things, even in this blog – and I usually check my facts. I blush when Julian occasionally points out a mistake. Sometimes I am not as rigorous as I should be – and I blame a lack of time, and a slight disrespect for the format of a blog for that. I need to change my ways, and my thinking.

      Like I say, I do this blog to learn from you guys.

      I learn from you, Rachael. Thank you.

      Bill

      Like

  9. Oh no. I’ve just read through the comments. Bill, if I’d read yours about speeding out in the back blocks I probably would not have mentioned the accident my own family was involved with due to poor driving choices. Seems so tasteless of me. I’m sorry. So much more could be said, but I think I’ll leave it at that.

    Like

  10. Steve, I’ve been thinking about what you said and I think I owe it to you to acknowledge your comment and respond. I don’t feel I have a right to speak here, but I welcome the invitation that Bill has extended to us to converse and thrash out ideas. I certainly see such dialogue as a privilege. You’re right – I am opinionated (who knew!), but I don’t think I force my opinions on anyone here. Sure, I ask questions, and I have even asked Bill if he would consider rephrasing what he said because I felt that we agreed in principle but his words had the potential to miss the meaning……I asked, but did not really expect him to change his mind. I may have met my match in opinionatedness in Bill! What I did expect (although only in the comments, not as a separate post!) was a well thought-out explanation of why it should stay as it is. I don’t have it as my ambition to change Bill’s mind on anything BUT at the same time, when he says he comes as a learner, I do consider that it might some day be a possibility. When we learn in humility sometimes we will end up changing our stance on an issue. However, whether or not that happens, is immaterial to me – I just join in the discussion.
    All the best.

    Like

    • hi Rachael –

      even though your comment wasn’t addressed to me – but to Steve (he’s probably asleep right now with the time zone difference) I’ll just put my two bob’s worth in

      I don’t see this as being a place where anyone necessarily changes the mind, or opinions, of others. We all come to discuss, and see other people’s points of view. You have yours, I have mine.

      I can’t do what I do – make movies – without being opinionated. It comes with the territory. No one would ever see a film made by someone who is always equivocal.

      I don’t ever ask or demand that anyone who comes to this blog accepts my take on things – on the contrary. I just ask that they respect my point of view.

      I have a particular way of looking at the world, as do you, as does Steve. It’s a product of our upbringing, our schooling, our parenting, our live experiences, our hurts and our triumphs.

      I respect your point of view, and would never be so presumptuous to think I could change your mind on anything. I don’t ever seek to do that. Sometimes I counter what you say, in a manner which will allow me to express something that perhaps I haven’t adequately expressed before.

      All good and healthy. I love our stoushes. And i do learn. When I’m wrong.

      it’s just that I’m never wrong.

      hahaha –

      kidding

      Bill

      Like

    • Rachel, I would agree that you are opinionated and that you might have met your match in Bill. I hope nothing in my observations has offended you because that is not my place in life, and you have just as much right to your opinions and approaches as anyone else. In fact, it is always entertaining to watch the jousting matches between you and Bill. Who knows, you might even change his mind some day, but don’t hold your breath on that one. 🙂

      Everyone is welcome on this blog, and there is no censorship, because who of us is a capable censor of the others? Certainly not me. Keep doing what you are doing and being who you are. I have no doubt you will. 🙂

      All the best to you, Steve

      Like

      • Hey Steve, I’m hard to offend. Bill nearly managed it when he took me to task over saying something and disappearing on an early thread – but I looked at it from his point of view – he was sitting at home logging in, looking for replies and I was not coming out of the shadows. From my POV I was away from the computer for 24 hours and blissfully unaware that anything was going down! At that time I felt attacked, but understood that in Bill’s eyes he was perfectly justified in his tone – as you know, I chose to continue engaging. Nothing else has come close to offending;-) So long as I am welcome, I will share my thoughts – if it gets to a point that they are too divergent for this audience, then I’ll respect that too. I hold tightly to my own ideals, but at the same time am always open to being shown I’m wrong, to learning another way.
        I really wanted to ask Bill to consider the “don’t follow the rules” terminology, because I actually thought there was a chance he may not have seen the meaning I understood (ie flout the law if you want to), and that he may not have wanted to say that. Turns out I was wrong, but I don’t regret bringing it to his attention (clarification: he is never advocating breaking the law, but he is comfortable with the fact that his statement can be interpreted that way). And in the process I got to know him better too. It seems to me that neither Bill nor I (nor you for that matter Steve) are fence-sitters – it’s just that sometimes we are on opposite sides of the fence and so our discussions are unlikely to be pat-each-other-on-the-back types of conversations. Funnily enough, I intended my original comment on this post to be an encouragement to Bill – for once I was for the most part agreeing with him wholeheartedly – it’s just that we ended up discussing the 2% of difference and so it looked like another prickly interchange! As long as the discussion remains respectful, I’m happy to dialogue.

        Like

        • Rachel, Keep on keeping on.

          I think we all know the difference in laws and rules to live by and unnecessary rules, and even laws, that seem to have no purpose. I think in the United States we promulgate laws for the few so often that we ignore the consequences to the many. Take the complexity of the tax codes for instance. Yes, we do obey them, at least I do, but I think they are archaic and way to complex and slanted. Oops. Another subject. I still agree with whoever said “All I ever need to know I learned in kindergarten”. If we could all live by that and the Golden Rule, there would be need for far fewer laws and far fewer lawyers. But, I diverge.

          Look forward to your continuing keeping Bill on his toes. It is a big job and someone has to do it. 🙂

          Like

      • I still agree with whoever said “All I ever need to know I learned in kindergarten”

        hmmmmm, not me — my dad taught me how to read and write when I was three, and I can distinctly remember being bored out of my mind at the inanity of what they tried to “teach” us at kindergarten.

        Like

        • Julian, You have already proven to be an exceptional guy, but for the rest of us, it began in kindergarten. 🙂

          Like

  11. Hey Steve I totally get that the laws in many countries are absurd. At heart I’m a libertarian – but the minarchist variety and not anarchist. Just sayin’

    Like

Comments are closed.