rules part deux

1. the rate of progress of success in any group is seated in the ability of its leader(s) to discover the most efficient method
2. some people appear to be more intelligent than the rest
3. these people are bound to step up and lead in a group that has drive for said success
4. enforcement of the most efficient method requires that the less intelligent obey the leaders
5. hierarchy of command is sacrosanct to such enforcement, thus rules are made
6. many rules are created to address specific aspects of group activity in order to optimise the usage of group-owned resources for the sake of a group-shared vision
7. excessive rule creation is symptomatic of leadership that is obsessive in nature; however well intended such obsession is...
8. it is tantamount to oppression of a higher class upon a lower class,
9. a failure of man that is not caused by the concept of rules but simply revealed by its large scale employment
10. likelihood of psychological revolution to occur is a function of the number of rules sanctioned and the intelligence of individuals constrained by those rules--it is a matter of time.
11. intelligent subordinates begin to question the rationale of some rules and upon analysis discover them to be ironically, but assuredly irrational.
12. the discovery of one bad rule encourages the scrutiny of another, and another, and yet another...
13. until it is realised that most rules are bad, insofar as they place in higher priority a small progress for the group at the disproportionate expense of the individual constrained by those rules
14. the revelation that not all rules are equal posit the possibility that rules cannot be absolute, derived from the premise that man-made rules are made by man (5.) and that man is far from perfect (9.)
15. by extension, rules are only as fit as the creator of those rules
16. and since a fit creator may make unfit decisions
17. all rules must be scrutinised by the individual regardless of the level of his own intelligence with regard to the leaders'. ie, no matter how stupid you think you are or how smart you think your leader is, skepticism pays.
18. such scrutiny should be performed to produce at minimum, sound raisons d'etre for those rules.
19. if said rationale may be achieved through other means, then the rule may be disregarded, for it is an incompetent rule. if no better means may be found, then the rule, though bad, is rightful in existence, and should be followed.
20. disregard for rules will definitely yield personal gain
21. complete regard for rules will indefinitely yield group gain, at definite personal cost
22. complete disregard for rules will definitely yield personal gain at definite and great group cost 
23. thus the fairest position for both person and group is to minimise all costs--by way of choosing which rules to follow and which rules to disregard
24. minimisation is a feat for the intelligent; fairness is a feat for the ethical
25. so while all rules are bendable, only some people are fit to bend them 

do you have faith in your own intelligence and ethic, or do you trust somebody else to be able to better decide what is good for you and good for the world?