[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"archetype-name-map":3,"thinker-h-l-a-hart":100,"$fHac-M-zI9UcoLDfYYuarNdNhxWsU0DyWKMADoCYSseg":162},[4,7,10,13,16,19,22,25,28,31,34,37,40,43,46,49,52,55,58,61,64,67,70,73,76,79,82,85,88,91,94,97],{"slug":5,"name":6},"anarcho-capitalist","Anarcho-Capitalist",{"slug":8,"name":9},"establishment-progressive","Establishment Progressive",{"slug":11,"name":12},"progressive-activist","Progressive Activist",{"slug":14,"name":15},"conservative-democrat","Conservative Democrat",{"slug":17,"name":18},"moderate-conservative","Moderate Conservative",{"slug":20,"name":21},"reform-conservative","Reform Conservative",{"slug":23,"name":24},"national-populist","National Populist",{"slug":26,"name":27},"left-nationalist","Left Nationalist",{"slug":29,"name":30},"democratic-socialist","Democratic Socialist",{"slug":32,"name":33},"techno-progressive","Techno-Progressive",{"slug":35,"name":36},"patriotic-progressive","Patriotic Progressive",{"slug":38,"name":39},"religious-conservative","Religious Conservative",{"slug":41,"name":42},"traditionalist","Traditionalist",{"slug":44,"name":45},"moderate-liberal","Moderate Liberal",{"slug":47,"name":48},"pragmatic-centrist","Pragmatic Centrist",{"slug":50,"name":51},"authoritarian-left","Authoritarian Left",{"slug":53,"name":54},"authoritarian-right","Authoritarian Right",{"slug":56,"name":57},"welfare-nationalist","Welfare Nationalist",{"slug":59,"name":60},"christian-socialist","Christian Socialist",{"slug":62,"name":63},"market-socialist","Market Socialist",{"slug":65,"name":66},"trad-socialist","Trad Socialist",{"slug":68,"name":69},"civil-libertarian","Civil Libertarian",{"slug":71,"name":72},"compassionate-libertarian","Compassionate Libertarian",{"slug":74,"name":75},"left-libertarian","Left Libertarian",{"slug":77,"name":78},"traditional-libertarian","Traditional Libertarian",{"slug":80,"name":81},"classical-liberal","Classical Liberal",{"slug":83,"name":84},"social-liberal","Social Liberal",{"slug":86,"name":87},"national-conservative","National Conservative",{"slug":89,"name":90},"neoconservative","Neoconservative",{"slug":92,"name":93},"techno-authoritarian","Techno-Authoritarian",{"slug":95,"name":96},"market-liberal","Market Liberal",{"slug":98,"name":99},"independent-thinker","Independent Thinker",{"thinker":101,"archetypes":113,"traditions":114,"traditionLinks":122,"homeOut":123,"homeIn":146,"works":147,"homeTradition":117,"siblings":148},{"id":102,"slug":103,"name":104,"one_line":105,"bio":106,"birth_year":107,"death_year":108,"nationality":109,"primary_role":110,"era":111,"portrait_url":112,"figure_class":112},1269,"h-l-a-hart","H. L. A. Hart","Rebuilt legal positivism around the union of primary and secondary rules and the internal point of view.","Hart is the most important legal philosopher of the twentieth century in English, and The Concept of Law (1961) is the book that made analytic jurisprudence a discipline.\n\nHis demolition of Austin is the starting point. Law cannot be the command of a sovereign backed by sanctions, because that account cannot handle rules which confer powers rather than impose duties — the rules that let you make a will, a contract or a company are not orders and carry no penalty for non-compliance, merely failure. Nor can habitual obedience explain why authority passes to a successor no one has yet obeyed.\n\nHis replacement is a legal system as the union of primary rules, which impose obligations, with secondary rules about those rules: rules of change for making new law, rules of adjudication for settling disputes, and above all a rule of recognition identifying what counts as law in that system. The rule of recognition is not itself valid or invalid; it exists as a social practice of officials.\n\nThe decisive concept is the internal point of view. A rule is not merely a regularity of behavior plus a risk of punishment; those bound by it use it as a standard for criticizing deviation, including their own. An observer who records only that people usually stop at red lights has missed what makes it a rule. This is the move that lets positivism describe law as a normative practice without conceding that its authority is moral.\n\nHis exchange with Lon Fuller over Nazi law, and later with Ronald Dworkin over whether legal reasoning can be explained without appeal to principles, defined the field for decades. His debate with Devlin over the enforcement of morality — arguing against the criminalization of homosexuality — is the applied side of the same liberalism.",1907,1992,"English","jurist","Contemporary",null,[],[115],{"is_primary":116,"traditions":117},false,{"id":118,"name":119,"slug":120,"short_description":121},506,"Legal Positivism","legal-positivism","That what the law IS and what the law OUGHT to be are separate questions — a rule can be valid because of how it was made, however unjust its content.",[],[124,129,133,138,142],{"relation_type":125,"traditions":126},"descends_from",{"name":127,"slug":128},"Utilitarianism","utilitarianism",{"relation_type":125,"traditions":130},{"name":131,"slug":132},"Empiricism","empiricism",{"relation_type":134,"traditions":135},"reacts_against",{"name":136,"slug":137},"Natural Law","natural-law",{"relation_type":125,"traditions":139},{"name":140,"slug":141},"Legal Reform","legal-reform",{"relation_type":134,"traditions":143},{"name":144,"slug":145},"Classical Natural Law","classical-natural-law",[],[],[149,153,157,161],{"name":150,"slug":151,"birth_year":152},"Jeremy Bentham","jeremy-bentham",1748,{"name":154,"slug":155,"birth_year":156},"John Austin","john-austin",1790,{"name":158,"slug":159,"birth_year":160},"Hans Kelsen","hans-kelsen",1881,{"name":104,"slug":103,"birth_year":107},{"cards":163,"influenced":164,"shapedBy":165,"outbound":166},[],[],[],0]