These relationships are about the relationships itself, *in spite* of convenience or circumstances--to break such a relationship is betrayal
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
They are prominent in families, tribes, armies, religions, governments, etc--they are about obligations, what is owed, what is due
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
So a king is obliged to provide for his people, and a people are obliged to defend their king--even if the situation becomes very difficult
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
Transactional relationships, not loyalty relationships, are what make a society rich--but where loyalty relationships disappear entirely...
1 reply 3 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
...more and more people will find themselves "inconvenient" to others, and will be left to fall through the cracks of society.
1 reply 3 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Where the transactional mindset prevails, and nobody owes anyone their loyalty, there nobody is owed protection either.
2 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Loyalty relationships are the foundation of society--transactional relationships are its facade
1 reply 5 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Loyalty: "I've got your back" Transaction: "I've got what you want"
1 reply 7 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
In loyalty relationships there is generally a superior and inferior--transactional relationship are between equals
2 replies 2 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
There can be no facade without a foundation, but there's no point to a foundation without a facade
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
Loyalty relationships exist so that transactional relationships are possible
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.