Explain the "polestar" argument. What is Stone's criticism of it? How might Friedman respond to Stone?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is The "polestar" argument is a concept put forth by legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart in his book "The Concept of Law." Hart argues that the fundamental guiding principle of a legal system is its "rule of recognition," which acts as a polestar, guiding judges in their interpretation and application of the law. This rule of recognition is not itself a rule of law, but rather a meta-rule that determines which rules are valid and binding within a legal system.

In his critique of the "polestar" argument, legal philosopher Jeremy Bentham, as well as contemporary legal scholar Julius Stone, argue that the concept of a rule of recognition is too vague and subjective to serve as a reliable guide for judicial decision-making. Stone specifically criticizes the "polestar" argument for its lack of empirical evidence and its failure to account for the influence of social and political factors on legal decision-making.

In response to Stone's criticism, legal philosopher and economist Milton Friedman might argue that the "polestar" argument is not intended to be a rigid or infallible guide for judicial decision-making. Instead, it provides a framework for understanding the role of the rule of recognition in shaping legal systems and the behavior of legal actors. Friedman might also emphasize the importance of individual liberty and economic efficiency in legal decision-making, suggesting that the "polestar" argument can be reconciled with these principles through a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between law and society.

Explain the "Polestar" Argument