In that I think we can only get a good handle on what we can be pretty sure about by convergence.

So that if each school of thought has some sort of legitimacy however imperfect yet they are coming in from totally different angles.

Then this gives us some opportunity to look into those regions where they might intersect.

I read that before. Though I remember you described it as a draft.

In any case its one of those things that can use a second reading.

But what I’m saying is this.

In practice do you think that Hayekian Jurisprudence would come into conflict with natural law theory. Or if the two were irreconcileable.

What would be your best guess on that?

Well it looks like it could get very interesting.

Does this evolutionary theorist stuff find itself going way out of the bounds that one expects from natural law theory?

If you were to categorize my thinking, I’d best be described as an evolutionary theorist. This has its origins in Hayek’s thought, although to be fair Hayek made use of Hume as well.

Hume is an early exemplar of critical thinking about the role of custom, something that Hayek did much more research on in Law, Legislation and Liberty. He wasn’t a positivist; positivism was very much a creation of Bentham and James Mill. Crucial bits of it were adapted by John Stuart Mill, but he also rejected some of positivism’s crude majoritarianism.

Because nothing can pass that test.

Its a MEGO argument to say that negativist law beats seven shades of shit out of natural law on account of the HUME problem.

Since NOTHING AT ALL can pass Humes high bar then finding that natural law cannot pass over it……. the MEGO argument comes into play.

That is to say MY EYES GLAZE OVER.

Its very much like talking to a born-again Christian when you are at High-School or undergraduate level.

And you get to the Big Bang (since then I’ve become a big-bang skeptic by the way but thats neither here nor there)

And he says…… Aha?

But who created the Big Bang?

And he thinks he got you. He thinks that the inescapable conclusion is that GOD DID IT!

God must have done it.

This is a MEGO argument.

But it simply hasn’t solved the conundrum. And since pretty much nothing that I’ve been told about yet CAN solve that particular conundrum of something out of nothing then no God conclusion can be taken from this.

HIS existence has to be deduced or ruled out elsewhere but it cannot be found in this MEGO argument.

And I would think its the same for utilitarianism, positivist (ie negativist) law… And pretty much anything that comes about by worrying about the David Hume high bar.

You go down to the athletics track. And you look at that high-jump bar….

You’ve measured your standing leap and related it to the best you can hope to do with the Fosbury flop.

But then they put the bar up to 15 feet.

You do some calculations and realise that no matter what, the Fosbury flop will not send you over the bar.

So you retreat to the ivory tower with your philosopher friends…. And they ruminate for a few months.

And then they put all their faith in the Scissors.

And they never quite focus on the reality that the scissors cannot reach that high bar either.

The Popperians will prove to be evasive on these points where they could be most helpful.

I think we ought to sort this one out.

Skeptic?

Can you tell me that positive merits of Positivist (ie negativist) law.

In what way does such law theory outcompete natural law theory?

I figure you haven’t got quite so much skin in this as does Jason or Daniel Barnes or even Rafe.

And plus you know a lot about law and all.

So you might be able to put the positivist (ie negativist) case and be a booster for Hume without running away.

Please explain