Weber's own writings support Lassman and Speirs' conclusion that Weber considered ultimate values and their subsequent political values to be subjectively determined. For instance, in "Between Two Laws" Weber writes that certain communities are able to provide the conditions for not only such "bourgeois" values as citizenship and true democracy, "but also much more intimate and yet eternal values, including artistic ones." 20 The language that Weber uses to characterize these two types of values leads to the interpretation that he held them to be a subjective matter. Regarding the first set of values, labeling them "bourgeois" brings to light their contingent nature: They are the product of a class, a strata. Regarding the second set, the labels "intimate" and "eternal" clearly set them apart from any objective foundation. An "intimate" value is by definition personal, an opinion. Further: It carries the connotation of emotion, of mystification. Likewise with "eternal."
Newsflash: Telling the truth is “NOT” Quebec bashing, so stop it with the typical ‘pur laines’, screeching denials and outright attacks when the ‘real truth about the total mess, Quebec is today, especially when compared to the rest of the country. I do though have to agree that I never had any restaurant offer a choice of paying in cash etc… As another stated the rest of the article is spot on and ‘dysfunctional’ has to be the understatement of the decade. So your getting your knickers in a close to hysterical knot over the restaurant claim is a beyond over reaction, no? After all – compared to the real ethnic cleansing demented language loi’s forced upon the population; notwithstanding the criminal erasure of pretty much all Charter & Constitutional rights forced upon over 2 million non francos living in the Greater Montreal area – who are forced to endure grotesque discrimination and outright daily abuses etc… makes me look forward to your response when the ‘truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’, is finally published for the world to see. :)
Most of the negotiation literature focuses on two strategies, although they call them by different names. One strategy is interest-based (or integrative, or cooperative) bargaining, while the other is positional (or distributive or competitive) bargaining. In their best-selling book on negotiation, Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury argue that there are three approaches: hard, soft, and what they call "principled negotiation." Hard is essentially extremely competitive bargaining, soft extremely integrative bargaining (so integrative that one gives up one's own interests in the hopes of meeting the other person's interests) and principled negotiation is supposed to be somewhere in between, but closer to soft, certainly, than hard. All of these topics are discussed in this section.