We developed this game in response to what we saw as the over-complication of standard golf. The United States Golf Association developed their game by trying to apply rules to every possible situation and apply America’s idea of fairness to an inherently un-American game.
Much like the game of Russian Roulette, our game is simple, fair, and brutal. Every one starts the game with identical chance of winning and the same odds of ending up dealing with the brutal part of the game. It is hardly the golfer’s fault if his ball ends up unplayable in a gopher hole, just as it's not the Roulette player’s fault if they end up with the occupied chamber.
Every time I tell people who play golf about our one-rule golf game, they play the “what if” game.
“What if someone cheats?”
“What if someone uses illegal equipment?”
“ What if a player kneels on a towel to make a stroke?” (Covered in USGA decision 13-3/2.)
We just don’t worry about the “what ifs” in our simple game.
We are all honorable people, and would not use unfair techniques to gain advantages. We all rather play with honor than win. The “what if?” people will always follow this up with “what if someone would rather win than play with honor?” We would pay up the gambling debts and then never invite them for a return engagement.
Trying to take our simple golf game out to the bigger world doesn’t entirely work. It is easy enough to vote someone who behaves dishonorably off the island in our small group, much harder to do in a big old goofy world.
The idea behind our simple game – just as it could be with the larger society – is heaping more and more rules onto our activity does not increase the chance of honorable behavior.
Honor actually decreases with all the rules.
Society – just as in golf – people now associate legal and illegal with right and wrong. Often times golfers will behave in all sorts of dishonorable ways on the golf course, defending themselves by saying: “It's not against the rules.”
Same with society.
Society decides legal and illegal on all sorts of behavior, often arbitrarily defining right and wrong.
A subject near and dear to my heart is recreational drugs.
The government at some point arbitrarily decided marijuana was illegal and alcohol was legal. In many people’s minds this means:
| Alcohol | = | good |
|---|---|---|
| Marijuana | = | bad |
For some people alcohol would be bad and marijuana would be good. For others, both might be bad, and for some lucky ones, both might be good.
Some would call me an anarchist.
Even in our simple golf game we have our two rules. The game couldn’t work without those rules, just as society couldn’t work without some minimal set of rules.
That is the key: a minimal set.
Laws need to be designed so that society can function, individual rights are protected, and the needs and desires of the society can be met. Government needs to get out of the right and wrong definition business.
I may disagree with someone’s choices, whether it is to lug around 30 clubs or marry 30 spouses. It is okay to disagree. Matter of fact, allowing others to do things I disagree with gives me the opportunity to feel superior to that person.
We let them decide for themselves, and then can poke fun at their choices.
2 comments:
A very solid first column with a lot to recommend it, in logical progressions, use of language and flow from paragraph to paragraph.
The writer uses the analogy of golf to get at a core issue in our culture: the equation of legality and morality (or whether an action is ethical). If something is legal, then it must be OK, seems to be the mantra in 2008.
That's hardly true. But the columnist did a good job of hitting those points and others on that issue.
One thing that would have bolstered this column was the point at which the writer talks about the federal government making marijuana illegal. Pin-pointing the time of that decision and throwing in a few details would have added some strength. A reference to the film 'Reefer Madness" might have been appropriate.
The writer gives us a clever and admittedly witty ending, very much like Jon Carroll in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Overall, a good piece and an excellent first shot out of the box.
Interesting you would mention the issues related to making marijuana illegal. I originally had a couple paragraphs for the reasons why marijuana was a Schedule I narcotic. I took out the paragraphs, deciding they had nothing to do with my point, and were appropriate for some future column.
Post a Comment