Inspired by 
When I started to study, I came across a big summary of theories and history of Anarchism. Until then, my idea about anarchism was that it promotes the absence of rules and order – boy, was I in for a surprise. But, as the title says, I don’t want to go into anarchism today, but into rules.
Each and every culture and society are based on a shared set of values. In theory, those values are inherited and taught, through upbringing and education. Rules store those values; they balance them out against each other and find a compromise that weighs each value as society does. Rules can be a lot of things – they don’t have to be law. They can be social behavior, like being polite, chewing with closed mouth, helping a stranger. Some rules have a natural consequence within the society like not being invited to parties anymore, others – laws – have punishments attached to them. Again, both consequences and punishments are based on the values that a society considers important.
We have to talk about them. We have to question them. We have to re-evaluate them. We have to discuss them, over and over. Rules are compromises, they are never perfect. They’re the attempt to balance out our values, give one more importance over another. As in recent discussions mentioned, Germany and most of Europe value Human Dignity way more than freedom of speech. Human Dignity is a more important pillar of our way of enacting democracy. In the USA, it’s different, freedom of speech is the more important pillar there. Each way has its benefits and deficits and none is the best – they’re just different. Germany does not stop being a democracy because protects the dignity of their politicians and imposes fines on those who carry their insults to excess. And the USA doesn’t stop being a democracy because the elected officials are executing the way they had promised and were elected for – even though that way seems against what we Europeans think democracy should be like.
We give certain values a different weight, hence we have different rules. That’s okay. We don’t have to convince anyone. We ally with those that our values are compatible enough with, to protect us against those whose values are entirely different. What we do have to do is talk to each other about them, discuss them, comprehend the other’s values so we can understand their rules. Just after doing that, we’re allowed to have an opinion (hint towards the US and the EU governments, since both sides seem to have absolutely failed in that).
(I first though about using “Rules are safety” as headline, but they are just an illusion of safety, as they’re build on trust and hence betrayable.) Having the same rules applied to everyone in the same way, though considering individual circumstances, builds trust. Trust in the system, trust in the society, trust in the future. That’s why it’s so important to apply scrutiny to the rules, both on the legislative as well as the executive and judiciary branch. I highly trust in the German system, still. I do wonder when I see the flashy news, but every time I actually check something – it’s not half as bad as the news displays. Those who really take the time to delve into it a little, usually find a comforting truth behind the arousing promise of outrageous injustice – and if there is that injustice, there’s all the more need to stand up against it, as it is done so many times in Germany, and never reprimed. The amount of peaceful protest shows – our democracy is alive, but there is an urgent need to discuss values.
But enforcing them has to be individual. Each and every case has to be revised on its own, and treated considering the circumstances – and that is not always the case. Unfortunately, many laws are not only generally valid, but also generalizing. In Ecuador, we have many fathers that are just terrible fathers, not present, not paying child support, not caring, or worse – using the child as a token of manipulating the mother. As reaction the that, the laws here are incredibly pro-mother. It is nearly impossible to gain custody over a child, even though it is clear for everyone around that the father would be the better person to raise the child. The laws protect the mother for good reason – but they don’t leave room for exceptions. Rules and laws have to consider the possibility for extraordinary cases, only then are they positive.
Rules are a pillar in every relationship as well, and have to be talked about. I just read a post here that cheating is the absolute worse – and yes, it can be, if the rules are clear. And I have seen so many couples where that is not the case. So many things are just taken for granted, based on one’s own values, without considering that the other might think differently. Or worse, one tries to adapt to someone else’s values, and fails – that was my case. I tried very hard to live up to the “standard rules of love” that my ex-wife had (she is 9 years older than me), but just couldn’t – neither could I talk about it. By not talking about it, neither expressing nor understanding, I destroyed that marriage. True love is not blindly accepting the other as they are and following like a dog, but to be brave enough to confront each other about everything, to express when feeling uncomfortable about something that seemed like a good compromise before. And to say “I wish you well” when the compromise is not possible anymore. You don’t want to compromise your essence, nor that of your partner.
In the relationship I am in now, I made my values and hence rules very clear from the beginning, we talked things over and over and over and adapted our relationship-rules over the last 5 years, several times. It’s ironic, but having established those rules and the communication that comes with it makes me feel free – because I know the limits. I don’t have to be walking eggshells or worrying about stepping on an emotional landmine. I can walk freely within the boundaries that I agreed on, that are a part of me, so I don’t even feel them. I can be myself, and in the end, that’s what I always wanted to be in a relationship.
That does not only apply in a relationship, but everywhere.
(This part is based on my personal experience and view – other involved persons might see it differently.) Before moving in with me, Lily grew up with her mother. Though being a good mother, she did not provide a neither structured nor stable environment in many ways, including in rules and consequences – enactment of those were quite random, in my eyes.
So, what I did was to do the exact opposite. I pushed myself to be incredibly stable. Living in the same house for 5 years now, where Lily always had her own room, and found everything exactly how she left it when she came to visit me. As mentioned before, I also was consistent with frequent visits. And – I was very consistent with rules. Most of the rules apply to her as they do for me, and she has all the right to call me out when I’m not complying either (within rational limits, of course). She is now living with me for 9 months, with a small break of 1 month that she went with her mom. The effect of stability and structure on her is most amazing, and became clearly visible after she came back from that 1 month vacation. In only one month without the structure and rules, she had lost a lot of self-confidence, was easily frustrated and refuged herself in superficial ego boosts via beauty and such (a blond girl in Ecuador gets to hear “Qué hermosa!” a lot). And that’s being only 6 years old. It took me and her teacher a lot of effort to “revitalize” her after that month.
They also have to be in line with the values of a society. In Ecuador, they're mostly not - you can see that easily. Nobody cares about the laws or the official rules (which in big parts were copied from European laws). There's a gap between them and the real values in the society, which - in my view after living here for almost 12 years - is accelerating the degradation of values. Values create the rules - but rules also help to maintain the values, to uphold them and to keep them alive in a society. But if not used with awareness, they can destroy the values in a society.
Rules allow us to worry less. They give us an understanding of our own culture, and of other cultures. They give us a connection with our roots, our values. But they’re not to be taken for granted. They have to be fought for. They have to be worked on. Only then can they be the base for happiness.
Referring back to anarchism, punishment is not something that is seen as a fruitful way to deal with violation of rules in a community. Punishment creates fear, but does not create values or aligns values, nor does it create comprehension. More so is something that is also very useful in upbringing of children: Trying to refrain from punishment, I rely on “natural consequences”. It’s just a little twist in communication, actually – instead of saying "If you break this rule, I will not play with you!" I say “If you break this rule, I might get angry because I feel like I have to do everything, and then I might not be in the mood to play with you.” It’s the same reaction from my side if Lily breaks a rule – but it’s not a punishment, she can understand it as natural consequence.
In theoretical anarchism, it works the same way. Rules are known to everyone, and clear to everyone – there’s a big difference to our current overly bureaucratic system, it’s almost impossible to know all the laws. Same goes for the natural consequences of violating the rules. Again, that is highly theoretical – I would have to really dive into that to see a way how to apply this in our world. If anyone wants to deep dive into that – be my guest and please tag me in your post!
Sorry for the long text. If you made it here - congratulations! You're hardcore!
