After the Shyster: The Mathematical Postscript

Friday, February 29th, 2008 Posted in Legal Explorations | No Comments »

In Shysters be Gone, part III, I proposed that law is composed of a policy goal combined with the strength of an imperative: Policy + Imperative = Law P + I = L If we have a law, and know the policy that ...

Shysters be Gone, part III

Thursday, February 21st, 2008 Posted in Business Law, Legal Explorations | 1 Comment »

In part II, I identified two types of antisocial behaviour which we attempt to prevent, restrain, correct, punish, etc., with law: “those which harm the integrity of society, potentially leading to its collapse; and those which alter the dynamic ...

Shysters be Gone! part II

Monday, February 11th, 2008 Posted in Business Law, Legal Explorations | 1 Comment »

We ended the first post in this series with the question, "Whence comes the ethical imperative, 'Don’t be a Shyster!'?" Now we will get into it: I would like to draw an ephemeral line between moral and ethical laws - just follow ...

Shysters be Gone! part I

Thursday, January 10th, 2008 Posted in Business Law, Legal Explorations | 1 Comment »

Contract law has, at its core, the ethical imperative, "Don't be a Shyster!"We impose a lot of positive duties with law in a complex "evolved" society. These are the things we tell people they are expected to do, in contrast ...