Dear Editor,

There is the well-known expression “You can lead a horse to the water, but you can’t make him drink.” I could add to that by saying, you could force the horse to drink, but you cannot make it enjoy drinking the water. And such is the limit of general laws, which are most often about restrictions and forced compliance.

Obeying the traffic laws, for example, yielding to oncoming motorists or observing the protocols of right of way, stopping at traffic lights or tolerating the privilege of an emergency vehicle with its flashing lights and screaming sirens to have the dominance of the roads are all rules that may get our reluctant acquiescence but not necessarily our desire to comply. Just like we pay taxes or a traffic ticket out of duty but not out of elation — for which reason many still disobey and break countless traffic regulations.

When rules become encumbrances and people feel they can evade penalty, obedience goes through the window. Even if they were to scare the goose bumps out of potential criminals and lawbreakers, and even if some relative compliance should occur, it doesn’t necessarily defuse the internal bombs that’s still ticking. So, like the horse and water analogy, it’s not even a matter of forcing the horse to drink but to make it want to drink the water. It’s also not a case of forcing anyone to comply with an edict or a rule but more about inspiring the willingness and desire to obey them.

Browbeating with regulations could become synonymous to the operations of a wheel barrow, whereby, as the pushing stops, the barrow also stops moving. Thus, until obedience to rules are reflections of internal desires, holding hands to the fire to force compliance may actually achieve it but not the willingness to obey.

Homer Sylvester

Mount Vernon. New York

h2sylvester@gmail.com