The Rules
* We should follow the rules so that we can maintain peace and organization within our society, economy, and even our country. Without rules no one would be able to work together.
* Two different kinds of people can be heard to utter that question, "Why have rules?" One of them does not believe in rules; the other believes in rules and adds a few more words to the question, "Why have rules, if you are not going to enforce them?" I would like to examine both sides of this argument.
Many people say that if we had no rules, there would be total anarchy and chaos. Some say that if there were no law against murder or theft, normal good people would murder and steal. I agree that there would be more murder and theft. But, I cannot imagine that normal people would murder and steal. Wouldn't you be repelled by murder and theft? Wouldn't there be implied constraints (implied laws, if you will) against murder and theft? Wouldn't the Golden Rule apply, even if it weren't given to us in the Bible? Aren't there always implied rules?
* Sixty-nine percent of students who obey the rules say that the rules are there for guidance and protection, with 20 percent feeling that the rules are there to scare them into obedience. * We follow rules because they are necessary to coordinate individual actions in a social setting. Some rules are self-enforcing, i.e., it is in each individual's interest to obey them. For example, once more than 50% of car operators drive on the right side of the road in a particular area, more and more drivers will notice that adapting to this rule reduces their risks of accident, and the rule will become more and more accepted. A driver who decides to break the rule will risk incurring a high cost. * A related reason why we follow rules is that we don't know the consequences of particular decisions: rules are, as Hayek says, "a device for coping with our constitutional ignorance.” * In certain instances, we follow rules because we
* Two different kinds of people can be heard to utter that question, "Why have rules?" One of them does not believe in rules; the other believes in rules and adds a few more words to the question, "Why have rules, if you are not going to enforce them?" I would like to examine both sides of this argument.
Many people say that if we had no rules, there would be total anarchy and chaos. Some say that if there were no law against murder or theft, normal good people would murder and steal. I agree that there would be more murder and theft. But, I cannot imagine that normal people would murder and steal. Wouldn't you be repelled by murder and theft? Wouldn't there be implied constraints (implied laws, if you will) against murder and theft? Wouldn't the Golden Rule apply, even if it weren't given to us in the Bible? Aren't there always implied rules?
* Sixty-nine percent of students who obey the rules say that the rules are there for guidance and protection, with 20 percent feeling that the rules are there to scare them into obedience. * We follow rules because they are necessary to coordinate individual actions in a social setting. Some rules are self-enforcing, i.e., it is in each individual's interest to obey them. For example, once more than 50% of car operators drive on the right side of the road in a particular area, more and more drivers will notice that adapting to this rule reduces their risks of accident, and the rule will become more and more accepted. A driver who decides to break the rule will risk incurring a high cost. * A related reason why we follow rules is that we don't know the consequences of particular decisions: rules are, as Hayek says, "a device for coping with our constitutional ignorance.” * In certain instances, we follow rules because we