Not rationalizing, just pointing out where I would draw my own line.
I follow the rules when it is in my interest to do so.
I view following the rules and/or “what’s expected” to be almost a moral imperative.
Say, so one followed the rules. Who cares about everything from obeying traffic lights to not cutting in line to paying for your groceries or even, really, just going into your neighbor’s house and taking what you want?
Well, if enough of us decide that following the rules is a load of crap, things are going to start to break down and fail. (In my opinion.)
So, I think there are some people out there whose adherence to/obsession with following the rules keeps society stable. Just enough of them out there care about using turn signals and returning library books and not beating people up just because they look at you wrong. 
Some people even go so far as to make the world a better place; picking items off store floors so someone doesn’t trip, telling the cashier s/he forgot to ring up an item, returning lost wallets.
If these self-righteous little snots weren’t quite so conscientious, who knows what would happen. 
I follow the rules that make sense to me and disregard the ones that don’t.
'Cause I’m a loner. A rebel.
Written rules and actual laws? For the most part. Those unspoken rules of polite society are a different subject.
I generally follow both the letter of the rules and their spirit, though the intersection of those two is usually not where the people making the rules thought it would be.
When I break the rules, I like to believe I’m doing so in a careful and informed manner.
It usually isn’t.
You need to understand the rules before you can have a reasonable chance of knowing which ones you can defy in any given situation. It took s long time and generations of experience to develop most of these rules.
I am intrigued. Can you give me an example?
Interesting responses…thanks for playing!
Personally I get a kick out of bending the rules when the rule-maker wasn’t smart enough to state them clearly or think through all of the possibilities.
Not too many have commented on the “spirit” of a law or a rule. in keeping with the above I feel little obligation to follow someone’s “spirit” especially if they really didn’t even need to waste the time/effort/resources to make a rule/law in the first place.
Yup, this is pretty much my exact attitude. Rules usually (though certainly not always) have a reasonable basis for existing. If after making an honest effort to understand why they’re in place I think they can be safely broken I will go ahead and do so. I consider myself true neutral.
My problem is not so much in following the rules, but with the people who make them up. Rule-makers love to tell you what to do or not to do, but they they inevitably make exceptions for certain people or ignore rules when they find them inconvenient to enforce. The way I figure it, if you can’t be bothered to stick to the rules you’ve made, I can’t be bothered to follow them.
I follow the rules when I want to and can be bothered. The less onerous the rule the less I’m bothered by following it the more likely to follow it.
Don’t kill people is a pretty good rule and following it doesn’t negatively impact my life. On the other hand I have to change how I’m holding the steering wheel to put on my blinker so I usually don’t.
I tend to follow most rules because I often get caught when I don’t. Plus I worry and stress out about getting caught, like will the repercussions be worth it? I don’t mind getting a parking ticket if I think that spot isn’t ok, but I don’t want to get towed.
I also have a hard time when other people don’t follow the rules. It’s so alien to me that s/he may as well be a Martian.
No.
There are lots of different kinds of rules…
The first kind are those that are good from first principles. Like, don’t play near heavy machinery. I follow these rules, but really I’m following the physical reality behind them, so the rule itself is somewhat redundant.
The next kind are those that are arbitrary, but where things work best as long as everyone is following them. For instance, traffic lights. There’s no natural sense in which I should go on green and stop on red, but when everybody else is following that pattern, I should too.
Next, we’ve got the kind that just happen to match my personal inclinations and morality. I don’t murder or steal from people because… I don’t want to. Again, I end up following these rules, but only by coincidence.
Then, we have rules which are stupid and I don’t wish to follow, but where the enforcement is such that I have little choice. Say, laws about drinking a beer on the sidewalk. Breaking them isn’t worth it for me. These rules I legitimately follow.
On the other hand, we have stupid rules that I can easily get away with breaking. For instance, if (hypothetically) I wanted to grow marijuana in my garage, I would do so without a millisecond of hesitation. I see no reason to abide by someone else’s rule when they have no ability to enforce it.
As for rules I set for myself, there aren’t any. Either I reason things through from first principles, or I go with my internal moral sense (wherever that comes from), or I go with what everybody else is doing until I can think things through. Nothing is set in stone, though.
Overall, I’d say I don’t follow the rules. But it’s fortunate that most rules in life do have some logical basis and so I rarely explicitly break them.
I follow rules as long as it is right.
In almost all cases rules, even reasonably unjust ones, are not ‘meant’ to be broken. For example: When the British Govt imposed the Stamp Act on the American Colonies they didn’t do it knowing that the colonists would not follow the rules, then revolt against their authority, and then they’d have an excuse to crush colonial rebellion with military force. They did it because they needed the money and they still felt that the duty of a colonist was to ultimately support the crown and help it prosper, even sometimes at their own expense.
When rules are imposed that are so obviously draconian as to guarantee lawlessness, the ‘ruling’ body that imposes them cannot exactly be considered very respectable and lawful to begin with.
It depends on the rules really.
Pretty much all the major rules (don’t murder people, don’t steal, etc) I follow quite rigidly, because they make sense to me and I happen to agree with them.
Minor rules that make sense, I treat as a guideline rather than a rigid rule. For example, if I need to park in town, I’ll quite happily park somewhere off limits if I’m just, say, getting some cash out of an ATM. If I’m going to be more than a minute or two, then I’ll find a proper space.
Rules that don’t make sense? Meh, I’ll ignore them as long as I can be sure I won’t be caught.
Example: One road I drive to work on used to have a 60mph limit. That was reasonable, and I used to more or less stick with it (more of a guideline thing, though!). But last year, it was changed to a 50mph limit. This is a stupidly low limit for this road. The road itself hasn’t changed; it was never an accident high risk route or anything; it was just changed as part of a county initiative. Therefore, the rule no longer makes sense, so I pretty much ignore it. If I’m going to be ignoring it I might as well do it properly, so now I drive around there faster than I did when it had a higher limit.
Ya know, that is a very good example of a rule that, IMO, is literally meant to be broken. In other words it is imposed fully knowing that it is not necessary for safety nor fuel economy, but because it will be broken on a regular basis and therefore will create a significant revenue stream (speeding tickets) on a regular basis. Pretty much all speed limit laws are for this.