Lawrence of Arabia or Meyer Lansky
Another argument in the Political Philosophy sectionIf you ever have to chose between a mobster and a civil servant, go with the mobster. Any time. Institutions do not have a sense of honor, individuals do.During the Great war, T.E. Lawrence, nicknamed Lawrence of Arabia struck a deal with the Arab desert tribes to help the British against the Ottoman empire, against his promise to deliver to them an Arab state. As they did not know better, they delivered on their side of the bargain. But, it turned out, the French and British governments had a secret agreement made in 1916, the Sikes–Picot agreement to divide the area between themselves. After the war, Lawrence went back to live in the U.K., supposedly in a state of frustration, but, of course, not much more. But it left us with a good lesson: never trust the words of a man who is not free.
Now on the other hand, a mobster greatest asset is the designation “his word is gold”. It was said that “A handshake from the famous mobster Meyer Lansky was worth more than the strongest contracts that a battery of lawyers could put together” In fact he held in his mind assets and liabilities of the Sicilian mafia, and was their bank account, without a single record. Just his honor.
As a trader I never trusted transactions with “representatives” of institutions; pit traders are bound by their bonds, and I’ve never known a single self-employed trader over a two-decades long career who did not live up to his handshake.

via Lawrence of Arabia… | Facebook.