Monday, September 26, 2011


There are certain rules of society that we all have to follow whether we like them or not. They are the rules/ties that bind us to a civilized society. Without these rules, the fabric of our society would be torn asunder, and chaos would reign.  Not that I am not a fan of chaos, I am, but it seems that chaos is us a bit too much for the majority of us to bear, so that leaves us following the rules. Those rules, the ones that we haven't a clue who made, are the rules that we blindly follow just to keep ourselves fully functioning members of society. The 'ties that bind' as it where the ones that keep us from going native.

But here's the rub, what if the person that made the rules, the ones we are mutually agreed upon to follow decides to break them?  Where does that leave society? If two, or more people decide this is a rule that we should all follow, and then one of them breaks it then what happens? Chaos? Who the hell knows, but chaos is probably sure to follow such a disaster of rule breaking. 

Personally, I've never been a fan of rules, and I always been a hard sell when it came to following them. I mean my disrespect for authority runs fairly deep. I am the son of a man who once punched an MP in the face while having a roll of nickles in his fist, so rule breaking runs in my family. It is a firmly held belief that rules were designed to be broken, as often, and as hard as possible. After all, what is the point is merely bending a rule? Break that rule like it is fine china that you don't have to pay for, after all it is probably someone else's rule to begin with.  Sure there will be consequences, but what do you care? They weren't your rules to begin with now where they.

Or maybe they were rules you adopted, rules that someone else made that you agreed, in your foolishness to abide by, rules that you thought were good ideas at the time. Maybe you agreed because it got you where you wanted to go, or maybe you agreed because you really thought it was a good rule at the time. After all, mutual agreement to a rule is a good thing right? It shows that two parties have decided that a rule is good for both of them, and following it can only be mutually beneficial.  But therein lies the rub, what if one party decides, without bothering to tell the other, that this glorious rule is bollocks, and unilaterally decides to no longer follow it?

It took two of you to agreed to the rule, but it only takes one of you to break it. Plain enough I guess, but what if you both break it? Then why do you bother having a rule in the first place? Wasn't it just a race to decide who broke it first? Maybe, or then again maybe the first person who broke the rule was just a bit too clever, a bit too slick, and didn't get caught breaking the rule. Then as that person revels in their ability to break the rules with abandon, they find out the other person broke the very same rule. What happens then? Does that person, the person who broke the rule in the first place have any right to complain? Do they get to bitch the other person out for be faithless to the rules?

All of this silliness is to say that once not so long ago, I chose to enter into one of these rule compacts, and I did a fairly good job of following that rule until it became a hassle for me, then I broke it, and I broke it hard, and more than once. However, being the talented soul that I am, my fellow pact member never had, or never has obtained a clue as to my rule breaking. However, I recently found out, without trying to hard that they also (more recently) broke the rule that we agreed upon. I can not be upset, after all I broke it first, and more than once. Actually I feel a bit proud in a odd sense. Pride in the fact that I broke the rule, and got away with it, and when they broke the rule I found out within 24 hours. Does that make me the evil son of a bitch that I think it does? I both hope so, and hope not all at the same time, but I will leave this judgement up to history.

No comments: