West, East, and the smooth ‘tween
The postman came visiting. I was here, but apparently the doorbell didn’t ring (right), and so I couldn’t sign for my new credit card. Instead, I found a note in my mailbox, informing me to go pick it up at the bank (this one organization serves as a bank, and as the central post here)… Anyway, at lunch today, I realized I was in the direct vicinity of the branch I had to go to, so I dropped by there to pick up my card. Except they wouldn’t give it to me. I didn’t have my passport on me, and no amount of talking and showing my various other cards, and Ids with my name on them would convince the post mistress, ingrained in bureaucracy and with a red-tape fetish that would make any government official back home blush, to just give me my mail.
I know, I know. She was doing her job. I needed to have my passport, and no other form of ID was allowed. I respect that. But it makes you wonder, is it really better to have such strict rules, and to have everything run in such an orderly, organized and controlled manner? Does that really improve our lives?
Back home, to conduct any bank business, i’d go in, they’d serve a coffee while someone took care of what needed to be done. No trouble. They know you, and they themselves can vouch for you. No IDs necessary. You’re valued, it’s a social experience. It’s what makes us human, somehow.
Here’s the cute catch.This form of business is definitely secure. People know each other, so no one could pretend they were me, but my brother could easily go to the bank and they’d have no problem taking care of some transaction that I’d asked him to do for me. Maybe a big difference is that there are many more people here, but still, the idea is fantastic.
It’s great living by rules, and not all of them are meant to be enjoyable. That’s absolutely acceptable. Between a society governed by unbendable, nonnegotiable rules, and chaos, I’d chose the former. Add the third option, a society where rules are a correct means to an end, and can be therefore be bypassed if another correct means were possible. I’m sold.
disclaimer: corruption, crime, man’s inexplicable tendency to do evil… yeah, I’d consider those if this were a thesis. As it stands, this is a rant - a much lesser form of didactic, and ergo, no science was involved, no hypothesis were formed, and none of the above can be negated. Except by another rant. Which is a manifestation of the third option anyway. So I’m still right.






