“Rules were meant to be broken,” some people say. Product commercials have often emphasized the same idea, implying that we’re not cool enough if we’re not breaking rules of tradition or social expectations. On the other hand, we sometimes hear in political circles an emphasis on the importance of “the rule of law.” For much of man’s existence, we have had some sort of rules or laws and we’ve also had many people who chose not to follow them.
A number of seemingly obvious questions arise: Are rules important? Does it matter if we follow them or not? Are we wrong to obey rules and laws? Does that make us “conformists” who don’t think for ourselves? Is rebellion the macho way to live? Which is better–to conform or to rebel? What is right?
If you assume that I’m going to discuss why rules and laws are important, you are right. But I’m also going to say that rebellion sometimes may have a proper place along with obedience or conformity.
The first issue that we have to consider is power and control. Rules and laws always involve someone having control and power to enforce them. If we are looking at a democracy, then such power should be derived from the consent of the people. This means that the public should have a say in what laws lawmakers create. But if the majority of us agree on a rule or law that the lawmakers make, then we should follow it.
In every case, a law or rule should only exist for the benefit of the people (directly or indirectly), whether it is to make things more efficient or safer or to help ensure a proper moral foundation. We need some laws; a world without laws (or rampant disobedience to laws) will tend to benefit mainly those who have the most power over people. If a lawmaker abuses his/her position and imposes a law that no one wants and doesn’t benefit the people, the first thing the people should do is challenge the law through appropriate means that are provided in the system. This could be contacting lawmakers to express our views or voting against it or organizing people, “peaceably to assemble, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” as the First Amendment puts it.
These processes may take time. If we don’t see change in due time, we should continue working within the system to call for the change we want, but we should also reevaluate whether what we are asking for is truly in the best interests of the people or if it’s just some personal preference that perhaps isn’t justifiable.
Rebellion or disobedience may be justifiable against a requirement that is immoral or unfairly restricts or degrades or threatens the safety of a group of people and no legal or lawful means are left to correct the situation. To me, this is the state of things that we read in the Declaration of Independence. Unfair requirements had been put upon the people with no useful way to correct the unfairness. Our rebellion at that time against British rule was justifiable.
On the other hand, disobedience for personal gain, for convenience, or to speed up a process is not justifiable. This must apply to all levels of the population, including those who hold government power. This is the important thing about obedience and conformity to laws. If those who have the power follow a fair law, they won’t arbitrarily treat people differently, based on how they feel about them. This is the value of “rule of law.” Everyone can know in advance what to expect because it is written and made public. If we decide we will disobey laws merely for our own convenience or personal gain, we can’t very well expect those at the top to be any different. If we expect others to follow the rules, we must do our best to do the same.