Once you get the Austin/Kelsen/Schmitt/Hart/Fuller/Finnis/Dworkin bug, it's pretty hard to get over it. Where do laws come from? Why should we obey them if we don't agree with them? What if a law is particularly onerous--should we still obey it, or is civil disobedience then in order? If statutes require constitutions, what, if anything, do constitutions require in order to come into being themselves? If it's some sort of mysterious "constituent power," what is it that make a particular group of people a "constituency"?
Oh, and if vehicles are prohibited on the boardwalk, does that mean we can't skate there??
It's great stuff. And at times like now, when the entire world is rapidly descending into hell in a moth-eaten handbasket that is (unsecurely) wrapped in a smelly, rotten blanket, these questions--as well as some of their near- and distant-relations (including some in-laws!)--provide lovely distractions. [NB: to be really safe under our present dire circumstances, it may be wise to continue to hold your noses while you read.]
Anyhow, the fact that the subject matter is so fascinating is a great reason to read Matthew Kramer's 2018 book on Hart's theory of law, which I just happen to have reviewed here.
No comments:
Post a Comment