Most societies -- like most religions -- find that things work a whole lot better when they have rules. Given the boundless creativity of human beings, it's just a whole lot easier when people are told very clearly what they can and cannot do.

There are some, of course, who will argue that it is possible to create a utopian society in which boundaries are determined by the individual. That's why there are a bunch of 40-year-olds walking around with names like Moonbeam and Lettuce. Hippie communes died out real fast once those kids hit junior high.

For most of the world, however, things just flow a bit more smoothly when you have rules -- you know, laws, commandments, things like that.

For instance, pretty much every religion has its version of the Ten Commandments, which tend to duplicate civil law in some cases, and expand into purely moral authority in others. While they reiterate that "thou shalt not steal," they also establish commonsense principals like, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's cocktail waitress."

In the civil law, of course, we have abandoned use of the very biblical "shalt" in favor of the much less confusing "shall."

These rules, however, appear to work best when there are consequences associated with them. There have to be repercussions for breaking the rules. You have to go to jail, or be fined, or burn in hell, or lose your television ad sponsors, or come back in your next life as a small town newspaper editor.

While religions have been pretty darn good about making sure all the "shalt"s are followed by "uh oh"s, civil law has not been nearly so attentive. Unfortunately, many people see that as a permission slip to break the rules.

The law in Pennsylvania says that absentee ballots shall be opened at the polls in accordance with very specific procedures. There are no consequences for breaking that law, however, which leads people to interpret the law to mean that we toss the ballot in the trunk of the car and dig it out from under the spare tire about a week later.

The law in Bellevue -- in the form of the home rule charter -- sets out a very specific procedure for adopting a budget. It's a very simple procedure, actually. They shall publish, in a newspaper, a summary of the budget. No less than 10 days after that, they shall hold a hearing to get public comment. No less than 10 days after that -- but not later than Dec. 31 -- they shall adopt the next year's budget.

But there are no repercussions for breaking that rule. So in Bellevue, officials interpret the law to mean that -- at least this year -- they never publish a budget summary, and hold a public hearing nine days after a legal notice of the hearing.

They do this even after being warned no fewer than three times at a recent public meeting that they really, really need to pay attention to the home rule charter.

Still, no negative consequences. No one gets fired. No one gets impeached. No one gets their pay docked -- heck, they give them raises!

Mark our words, this kind of lawlessness and anarchy will lead nowhere good. The next thing you know, they'll be naming the streets after things they see in council-meeting-induced hallucinations. Jack Daniels Avenue, here we come.