~F.A. Hayek

The Fatal Conceit

If that were the explanation, you’d expect more of a continuous thread throughout human history. Instead, many traditional societies did (and do) enforce laws or norms on what we think of as “personal” behaviour.

I feel the distinction is a much more modern development, linked with the rise of personal autonomy ideas. If we’re looking for an evolutionary trait that got co-opted into this cultural development, I think the most likely candidate is leadership. Leaders have a distinct seperation between their business role (I do this for all of you) and their personal role (I do this for myself). The led will pressure leaders to act in their best interest; leaders demand the right to look for themselves somewhat. A leader’s life torn between these tendencies will naturally develop “business” and “personal” spheres of action.

However I think the personal/impersonal gut instinct plays a major role. Consider for instance a racist multi-billionaire. If he gives his many billions to his son, who is white like him, no one cares. If he gives a million to each of his many friends and acquaintances, who are all white because he is racist, then some people will be disgusted. If every time he goes out he gives a thousand dollars to everyone he meets, so long as they are not black, I think there would be even greater outrage.

What’s happening is his interactions are becoming increasingly impersonal. Also, there is a sense in which he is expanding his power, as his actions seemingly directly influence a larger number of people.

That is, if people actually say this in business. I have no experience there. I primarily think of this phrase as something people say in gangster movies when they’re about to waste somebody.

Of course, our society is not totally anonymous, and driving a weak bargain may in fact hurt one’s status sometimes – it’s just not as common or salient as one’s archaic instincts probably think.

Anyway, despite his cordial feelings for his Yanomamo friends and his appreciation of the situation’s gravity, Chagnon almost cracked up when they started gingerly conversing about aspects of their past conflict in totally fallacious ways, exaggerating and lying their way to a new consensus truth about how neither village could really be blamed for their conflict, especially considering how perfidy by other (hostile) villages contributed to the whole thing.

Hey anyone, what ethnology should I read next?

Marriage was primarily a financial arrangement in past centuries. It is not currently seen as being primarily a financial arrangement. Yes, finances definitely play an important role. Yes, marriage does grant a large number of financial privileges and obligations. But when you ask people who they want to marry, you will generally not hear, “Whatever person I would make the most money by marrying.” When you ask people the reason they get married, they do not say, “To make more money.” Your statement is simply wrong.

I don’t really see how attorney conflicts of interest are relevant. Your example is too brief and vague for me to rebut.