What I was aiming at was not the perspective of the powerful. I was more concerned with highlighting the total futility of bureaucratic acts. There is no sense to be found in them. If you ask people about it, you frustrate them because they can't give you one, except that it is now so "regulated". But where you insist on getting a meaning (answer), you get innumerable answers, because the human brain WANTS to find a meaning. Thereby one is oneself involved in the manifestation of the (annoying) justifications, because one achieves exactly the opposite of what one actually wanted to achieve.

The bureaucracy is constantly demanding new documents and when you ask someone in the administration "Why do you want that?", answers like "So that fraud is prevented. Otherwise anyone could come and apply for something and tell the untruth." In this way, exceptions are steered into a set of rules that assumes that everyone lies and cheats. The exception is declared the rule.

This is how we humans get entangled in a horizontal debate and fuel conflict among ourselves, because the senselessness in the regulations of the bureaucracy is incapable of providing true answers. But if you try to point out to someone that he is a vicarious agent of meaninglessness, he will want to get rid of you or, if you insist on answers, he will deal with you more harshly and make life difficult for you. Finally, he will tell you that it is for your own good and believe it. Only because he feels personally attacked by you in his identity. His answers will be all the more convincing the more he gets the feeling that he is an idiot in your eyes.

If you ask me, the only way to realise that someone is being led on by bureaucratic futility is through friendly irritation. If you are only able to irritate one person out of ten in a friendly way, a lot is already gained, I think.

Peace to you as well.