Wisdom at the Tim Horton’s

It happens every day. Whenever we are faced with a restriction in our lives – like speed limits, border restrictions, or even the number of cans of beans you can buy when they are on sale – we complain about it. Whenever we witness someone doing something they “shouldn’t be allowed to get away with,” – like hogging all the beans – we complain about the lack of controls and clamor for more rules. The result is a more and more bureaucratic and restrictive world (which of course we complain about).

I always enjoy stories that explore events from the perspectives of different individuals. The old adage about there being two sides to every story, while simple to grasp in general, usually escapes notice when we explore news stories. This is especially true when we get around to the inevitable question of, “Well, what are we going to do about it?” Almost every newspaper article ends with a section that explores possible ways to address the issues raised by the story (city council will explore this issue, researchers are developing treatments, the minister will draft legislation, etc.). It seems that events rarely get reported or discussed on radio talk shows or in on-line discussion forums without the inevitable “There ought to be a rule…” and “Why do we have such stupid rules?”

In my December 8 Metro column, I explored this idea from the perspective of two imaginary news stories.

Two worlds

(Source: Deux mondes. Journal Métro, December 8, 2009)

Let’s imagine two newspaper stories.

Story 1: A young adolescent wants to try out for his high school golf team and plans to bring two clubs to school. The bus driver refuses to let him onto the bus citing a number of assaults that have taken place and not wanting someone on his bus with a potential “weapon.” The boy is stranded at the bus stop in tears and fails to try out for the team despite his promising talent.

The media pick up on this story and soon you overhear a discussion at the local Tim Horton’s. “I can’t believe they didn’t let that poor kid on the bus. What do they think he is? A homicidal maniac!” People shake their heads at the ridiculousness of some attitudes or the pettiness of some rules.

Story 2: A child is struggling for his life after being beaten with a golf club on a school bus. It seems that a classmate with a grudge brought a golf club onto the bus, telling the driver he was trying out for the school team.

You hear this story being discussed over coffee. “Did you hear about the kid beaten up on the bus? I can’t believe the driver let someone onto the bus with a golf club! There should be a rule against bringing potential weapons onto a bus. People can’t be trusted!” The coffee drinkers all nod in agreement.

There ought to be a rule / Why do we have such a stupid rule?

Of course I made up these stories but if you read any newspaper or overhear people discussing events, it won’t take long to notice two competing themes emerge. On the one hand, when faced with the restriction of a rule or a law, people tend to decry such rules and claim that they are not justified, given the rarity of the negative events they are designed to prevent. On the other hand, when such negative events do happen, people tend to clamor for rules and laws against “that sort of thing.”

Which world?

There are no two ways around it. With every law or rule, we gain some order but give up some freedom. It is easy to support one side of a debate when we become aware of specific events. It is only by being aware of both sides of an issue that we can make a fairer choice about which world we want to live in – one with more freedom but with occasional unpleasant or even tragic events, or one in which we are limited in our actions by rules and laws that try, successfully at times and unsuccessfully at others, to keep us living in a more ordered society.

We can’t live in both.

Tagged as laws, Metro, rules, Tim Hortons, two sides to every story, two-sided arguments.

Posted in Random thoughts.

Posted on 23 Dec 2009