My erstwhile sparring partner, Will Baude, blogging at Volokh, posts an exchange between a father and a son that he says "well encapsulates" the Hart/Fuller debate, or at least Hart's side. I know this is supposed to be jocular, but I don't think it's fair to Fuller, and therefore, I don't think it's funny. A more accurate version, with the child standing for Fuller and the father for Hart, would be:
William: Daddy, why didn’t we have lunch today?Henry: We did have lunch, William. Remember we had that chicken?
William: But it was chicken and waffles, we ate it at 5 in the morning, with coffee, and just after waking up.
Henry: But it’s still lunch.
This version is much fairer to Fuller's (correct) position. Also, I would submit that children, with their well-known desire for fairness, have much more of a sense for natural justice than for positivism. Rare is the child who's satisfied that the rule is the rule "because I say so."
Comments policy