Yesterday, I visited the Arlington Cemetery outside of Washington, DC. I was there for a class I am taking and we were to meet at the Women In Military Service for America Memorial (a great piece of architecture, btw) at 1:30. I arrived at the Cemetary at 1:10 and since you must pay to park, decided to idle in front of the gate to give me some extra time. I was fully conscious of any cars behind me that also wanted to park, but there was also a second gate for cars to gain access to the parking garage. Well, during this time, a 'security guard' (portly, of course) strolls up to my car and tells me the due to the 'droves' of cars that come into the garage, I need to move immediately. I look behind me and there are no cars in sight. I tell him I understand I would need to move if a car was behind me, yet he insists I need to move to keep the area open. Obviously, this makes no sense. This guy is merely following rules set up by whatever system is in charge of the Arlington Cemetery and not even thinking about the common sense application of said rules. So, instead of arguing with the rules robot, I enter the gate and get my ticket.
Later, as I was leaving the monument and heading back to the garage, I walk down the sidewalk and turn down a road that would be quick access to the garage. About 2/3 of the way down this road before I hit the next sidewalk, I hear "HEY, HEY!" I turn to see another security guard pointing at me, telling me I cannot walk down that way. Instead, I have to use the designated pedestrian walk. He is ignoring the fact that I am almost to the next sidewalk, and it would actually take more time to walk back the way I came to use the 'appropriate' walkway. I understand this is for my safety, since cars would be driving down the road and I was not on a real sidewalk. But at that time, and for the whole time I was walking, no cars passed me and none were in sight. Yet, because of the 'rules' established, I had to revert and comply. Again, no common sense was applied.
I think this is the main reason why police and security guards get so disrespected. Yes, it is their job to enforce the laws of whatever system they are representing, but often the rules they are enforcing create more conflict than needed. When these situations arise where the rules or laws conflict with pure common sense, then the offender will take it out on the enforcer, despite the system being to blame.
I also understand that in this age of litigation, where any infraction can result in some sort of lawsuit, the enforcers of these rules have been guided to make sure strict application of those rules be administered. If for some reason they don't, and something unfortunate were to happen, they would be the ones to blame because the rules were not followed. In order to keep their job, they have to follow the rules of enforcing the rules. It's just sad that these enforcers have to deny common sense for fear of causing their employer to be sued. In fact, the legal system is the biggest proponent of ignoring common sense and only living by rules. Just look at the example of having to put a written warning of "Caution, Contents may be hot" on a cup of coffee, the antithesis of application of common sense.
Beyond the fact that our legal system is a crock of shit, I guess my biggest beef is that these rules being enforced are assuming that I, as the common patron, am an idiot. I am obviously not smart enough to realize other cars might want to use the entry gate to park, so a rule needs to be in place to keep me from blocking their entrance. I am also not smart enough to realize that a road is used by cars and if I stand in that road when I car comes by, I could get hit and injured. I am not intelligent or capable enough to move myself out of the way on my own volition. The example above is even worse since I had to put myself in even more 'danger' in order to comply with the rule being enforced.
Yes, for the most part, rules are there for our own protection and are a necessity for keeping society safe and functional. I would think that we can all agree that anarchy, or no rules at all, just would not work in a world of almost 7 billion individuals. But there needs to be an allowance for questioning the rules that govern us. If a rule or law is in obvious contradiction with common sense or is counter-intuitive to given situation, then why should that rule be applied? My only conclusion is that rules must be applied in a general fashion to protect the whole of society and since there are those that are not as smart as others, rules must conform to the lowest common denominator. Hence, rules are designed for idiots.
Later, as I was leaving the monument and heading back to the garage, I walk down the sidewalk and turn down a road that would be quick access to the garage. About 2/3 of the way down this road before I hit the next sidewalk, I hear "HEY, HEY!" I turn to see another security guard pointing at me, telling me I cannot walk down that way. Instead, I have to use the designated pedestrian walk. He is ignoring the fact that I am almost to the next sidewalk, and it would actually take more time to walk back the way I came to use the 'appropriate' walkway. I understand this is for my safety, since cars would be driving down the road and I was not on a real sidewalk. But at that time, and for the whole time I was walking, no cars passed me and none were in sight. Yet, because of the 'rules' established, I had to revert and comply. Again, no common sense was applied.
I think this is the main reason why police and security guards get so disrespected. Yes, it is their job to enforce the laws of whatever system they are representing, but often the rules they are enforcing create more conflict than needed. When these situations arise where the rules or laws conflict with pure common sense, then the offender will take it out on the enforcer, despite the system being to blame.
I also understand that in this age of litigation, where any infraction can result in some sort of lawsuit, the enforcers of these rules have been guided to make sure strict application of those rules be administered. If for some reason they don't, and something unfortunate were to happen, they would be the ones to blame because the rules were not followed. In order to keep their job, they have to follow the rules of enforcing the rules. It's just sad that these enforcers have to deny common sense for fear of causing their employer to be sued. In fact, the legal system is the biggest proponent of ignoring common sense and only living by rules. Just look at the example of having to put a written warning of "Caution, Contents may be hot" on a cup of coffee, the antithesis of application of common sense.
Beyond the fact that our legal system is a crock of shit, I guess my biggest beef is that these rules being enforced are assuming that I, as the common patron, am an idiot. I am obviously not smart enough to realize other cars might want to use the entry gate to park, so a rule needs to be in place to keep me from blocking their entrance. I am also not smart enough to realize that a road is used by cars and if I stand in that road when I car comes by, I could get hit and injured. I am not intelligent or capable enough to move myself out of the way on my own volition. The example above is even worse since I had to put myself in even more 'danger' in order to comply with the rule being enforced.
Yes, for the most part, rules are there for our own protection and are a necessity for keeping society safe and functional. I would think that we can all agree that anarchy, or no rules at all, just would not work in a world of almost 7 billion individuals. But there needs to be an allowance for questioning the rules that govern us. If a rule or law is in obvious contradiction with common sense or is counter-intuitive to given situation, then why should that rule be applied? My only conclusion is that rules must be applied in a general fashion to protect the whole of society and since there are those that are not as smart as others, rules must conform to the lowest common denominator. Hence, rules are designed for idiots.
No comments:
Post a Comment