580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
Figure 1 – uploaded by Duncan Kennedy
Table 1 With the caveats in place, the parallels among the domains might be reductively represented as follows: Remember that the puzzle before us is to understand Weber’s the- ory of LFR, and to trace the fate of his theory into the contemporary mode of legal though . As a first step, we have already distinguished the question of moral or ethical validity of norms in a system from the ques- ively. LFR is, in We chantment applies wi prise of producing va steps that lead us to t ion of the mode of legal reasoning once a set of norms are given legisla- ber’s view, the modern way to do legal interpreta- ion to generate new legal norms scientifically from the legislative postulates. Keeping to his distinction, the ideal typical narrative of disen- hout much strain to Weber’s account of the enter- id legal norms by declaration (as opposed to by in- erpretation, as in LFR). His sociology of law elaborates the series of he modern situation he calls positivism and that we call classical legal thought: