The premise of your question is fatally flawed. See Robert Ellickson, Order without Law. The law *is* what it is believed to be.
-
-
Replying to @riemannzeta
I’m asking about how the law & economics model treats this, is that what you’re answering?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @literalbanana
What is on the books is not very often consulted.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @riemannzeta
so law is what people believe but there’s no term for the distinction between that and “on the books” law?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @literalbanana
Well there are rule of law issues that stem from that distinction. But the point of the economic analysis done by Ellickson and others is that the distinction doesn't matter in many, if not most cases in which people have to decide how to behave or even how to resolve disputes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @literalbanana
I guess if you wanted to define law as what lawyers do then you might need a different term. Personally, I don't believe in privileging lawyers that way.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
maybe this applies equally to all domains (trash removal? recycling?) it’s just law claims a universality most domains don’t
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.