Explain whether or not Ronald Dworkin’s view can adequately capture the features of law that distinguishes it from the "gunman situation writ large".

Explain whether or not Ronald Dworkin’s view can adequately capture the features of law that distinguishes it from the "gunman situation writ large".

Explain whether or not Ronald Dworkin’s view can adequately capture the features of law that distinguishes it from the "gunman situation writ large".

Explain whether or not Ronald Dworkin’s view can adequately capture the features of law that distinguishes it from the "gunman situation writ large".

To me, it can.  This is because of Dworkin’s idea of secondary rules.  If all the government does is issue primary rules, then it is no different from the gunman.  When governments are autocratic, they still are no different.  But Dworkin says that lawmakers must adhere to secondary rules if a system is truly going to be a legal system.  This is very different.Secondary rules tell lawmakers what they must do in order for laws to be legitimate.  In our system, the lawmakers must be duly elected and must vote in favor of the law.  There are generally transparency rules involved in how the law must be made.Because they have to follow these rules, the lawmakers are not simply gunmen.
Explain whether or not Ronald Dworkin’s view can adequately capture the features of law that distinguishes it from the "gunman situation writ large".
Explain whether or not Ronald Dworkin’s view can adequately capture the features of law that distinguishes it from the "gunman situation writ large".
Read More
Explain whether or not Ronald Dworkin’s view can adequately capture the features of law that distinguishes it from the "gunman situation writ large".
Read More