http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/71 Notes from the intersection of law, society, technology, economics, and culture Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:24:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/71#comment-8 ibnezra57@yahoo.com Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/71#comment-8 Hope you will bear w/some layperson's questions (who didn't read Alexy). Wouldn't some positivists avoid a term like "social efficacy", which sounds like Hart's approach? Similarly, don't positivists avoid defining the "necessary" rather than "permissible" content of law? (I.e., positivism allows morals and even "natural law" as content and origin of law, but not as necessarily so.) Hope you will bear w/some layperson’s questions (who didn’t read Alexy). Wouldn’t some positivists avoid a term like “social efficacy”, which sounds like Hart’s approach? Similarly, don’t positivists avoid defining the “necessary” rather than “permissible” content of law? (I.e., positivism allows morals and even “natural law” as content and origin of law, but not as necessarily so.)

]]>