Usually I don't like people who don't follow rules, particularly if they make a habit of it. Who exempted the rule-breakers from things all the rest of us have to do, even though we don't like doing them? Most rules are designed for the protection of all of us from each other. That's how civilizations like ours regulate themselves and prevent chaos. No civilization can function if it's every person for himself/herself and to hell with everyone else; that's anarchy.

However, although I usually follow rules, I don't always do so. If I don't follow them it's usually because I think I won't get caught, or nobody gives a crap, or I'm bigger and tougher than you so don't give me any sh*t about it. That's bad thinking on my part, and it sets a bad example. Smarter and more considerate, civilized, cooperative thinking would be to work with others to change rules that don't make a lot of sense. The bad rules are usually ones imposed by one person, or a small number of people, out of personal preferences. Better rules are ones voted on by a group after debate and are majority decisions. Rules that are made can be unmade, and bad rules should be unmade, not ignored just because we feel like it. If there are too many rules, let's get rid of a bunch of them that aren't all that necessary. We're citizens with votes, and we can vote bad things out (even though sometimes it takes longer than we'd like).

Granted, there are always exceptions, like the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg whose attempted excuse was "I was just following orders." There are, of course, higher rules of morality in such cases, where making and following rules would harm others, and people should instinctively know better (one would hope). But in ordinary situations, isn't breaking rules yet one more example of the biggest failing of the human race--selfishness (which is, after all, akin to greed)? Wouldn't we all be happier living in a society where everyone cares about what happens to everyone else, which means, of course, others would care about what happens to you and me? That's what morality is all about, isn't it? So why not start being more moral by doing what we can to be considerate of others, which includes following rules that the majority of us agree on.

In another review in a different context (Corporate Fraud, here), I recently quoted, of all people, the late Dennis Weaver (you youngsters ever see the TV series Gunsmoke, or McCloud, or the cult TV movie Duel? That was him, at first blush a most unlikely philosopher, but in fact a very sensitive, other-directed activist; see Wikipedia, Dennis Weaver.) His words also seem apropos here: "The ultimate solution is to shift mass consciousness away from hate, greed and fear towards peace, love, cooperation and justice."

I don't know about that - overall, I think we admire people who have the guts to question authority and live outside the box. No doubt those who are comfy in their own little nest are less likely to see it this way but, let's face it; they are almost always in the minority. Yes, rules can be good but if taken too dogmatically they can also impede forward thinking and progress (for instance dueling and under age child labor used to be legal). The world is and always will be in a constant process of restructuring and reworking - hopefully keeping the best of the old and trimming off the parts that are no longer of any use.