The idea that fair rules are binding in themselves is largely an illusion. The powerful can be compelled to honor agreements only by someone more powerful still—and no one, in turn, could reliably police that authority. As Thucydides observed more than two millennia ago, “Justice is considered only between equals in power. Otherwise, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
I was met with an objection that this describes only a pathological form of power—that this is not how power has to operate. After all, a good boss may play soccer with his employees and follow the rules of the game, even though he is vastly more powerful than they are. This raises a genuinely interesting question: why do those with power so often follow rules they could easily ignore?
First, this is a matter of how power is actually distributed. Yes, the company director could break the rules, pick up the ball with his hands, and carry it straight into the goal. No one would likely dare stop him. But he would be despised behind his back, quietly hated, and small acts of resistance would almost certainly follow. The consequences might be indirect, but they would be real—and might even be felt by people close to him, including, perhaps, his romantic partner if she works at the company. Power, in other words, is rarely one-directional. Subordinates possess forms of power of their own. In extreme cases, the right act of sabotage at the right moment can be ruinous.
Second, we must ask: what is the boss’s actual goal? It may not be to win the game at all. He may simply want the pleasure of playing, or hope that shared competition will improve workplace cooperation, reduce errors, or encourage innovation. In corporate sports, this is usually the case. And yet, for many leaders, this balance is difficult to maintain. On the one hand, they want to foster solidarity; on the other, they desperately want to win. They are internally divided.
And lest the world appear too bleak, it is worth remembering that most of us do not live in the realm of high politics. Far more often, our conflicts and games are played with people who are roughly our equals, or only marginally stronger than we are. In those settings, rules are more or less respected—not because they are sacred, but because power is sufficiently balanced to make restraint rational.