Georgetown University Law Center

Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW

1985

Why We Need Legal Philosophy

Randy E. Barnett
Georgetown University Law Center, rb325@law.georgetown.edu

This paper can be downloaded free of charge from:

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1554

Randy E. Barnett, Why We Need Legal Philosophy, Foreword to the “Symposium on Law and
Philosophy,” 8 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 1 (1985).

This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author.
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub
Part of the Jurisprudence Commons
 FOREWORD: WHY WE NEED LEGAL
PHILOSOPHY

RANDY E. BARNETT*

As I see it, the object of legal philosophy is to give an effec-

tive and meaningful direction to the work of lawyers, judges,
legislatures, and law teachers. If it leaves the activities of
these men untouched, if it has no implications for the ques-
tion of what they do with their working days, then legal phi-
losophy is a failure.
L. Fuller'
-Lon

Do we need legal philosophy? Legal philosophy orjurispru-

dence, like many other areas of philosophy, is of intrinsic inter-
est to many people. But this does not tell us whether or why we
need it. The answer suggested by Lon Fuller is that legal philos-
ophy has - or should have - implications for lawyers, judges,
legislators and law professors. And yet in 1952 Fuller con-
cluded that: "Judged by this standard I don't think we can
claim that the last quarter of a century has been a fruitful one
for legal philosophy in this country - certainly not in terms of
2
immediate yield."
Fuller's dour observation, if it was true when made and re-
mained true, leads to two further questions: First, in what man-
ner does legal philosophy affect the practice of law? Second,
how is it that some philosophies are useful to legal institutions
and others are not? In this essay I shall briefly describe the
present state of legal philosophy and, then, sketch the answers
to these questions that are suggested by one particular strain of
recent jurisprudential thought. We will then be in a position to
address the question of why we need legal philosophy. In ad-
dressing that question, the purpose of this symposium can be
better understood.

LEGAL PHILOSOPHY: THE STATE OF THE ART

American legal scholarship of the past several decades has

centered primarily on justifying and advocating the expansion
* Assistant Professor of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College
of Law. B.A., Northwestern University. 1974;J.D., Harvard Law School, 1977. Profes-
sor Barnett is director of the Institute for Humane Studies' Lau, & Philosophy Program.
1. L. FULLER, THE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL ORDER 249-50 (K. Winston ed. 1981)
2. Id. at 250.
 HarvardJournal of Law and Public Policy [Vol. 8

of governmental jurisdiction and power at the expense of pri-

vate jurisdiction and liberty. Consequently contracts, torts and
property, the private law categories that define the nature and
scope of individual property rights - the key concepft in the
classical liberal vision of a free and just society - have been
slighted in favor of such public law subjects as constitutional
law, administrative law, labor law, and antitrust law, subjects
that concern the nature and scope of government.
When private law is discussed, it has been fashionable to
treat the rights of individuals as simply one "factor" to be "bal-
anced" against the "public good" within a calculus of what is
called a "public policy" analysis. How one attaches real
weights to things that cannot be measured is never specified.
Nonetheless, this theoretical approach has spawned a genera-
tion of lawyers, teachers and jurists that views the legal system
as an instrument by which any aspect of human achievement
and enterprise, particularly commercial enterprise, may be
regulated.
It is no coincidence that a period so neglectful of the private
rights of the common law has corresponded to a period where
legal philosophy was mired in the twin ruts of Legal Positivism
and Legal Realism. Legal Positivism is a philosophy that con-
ceives of law as the command of the soveriegn. Law is law be-
cause of who pronounces it, not what it commands. The
question, "what is law" is asserted to be wholly distinct from
that of "what should be the law." Judges have a legal duty to
follow the law as it is. To a positivist, any moral duty to refuse
to follow an unjust law that might exist is an extralegal affair.
Against this view, the proponents of the natural law position
argue that this positivist definition of law puts the cart before
the horse. The institution of Law, they argue, has a social func-
tion (more on what this function might be below). While it is
true that law oftentimes requires enforcement 3 and that the
proper source or sources of law must be determined if the insti-
tution of law is to fulfill its function, what the law requires is at
least as important to this end as who decides on the law. In
short, substance is as important as process. The private rights
of the common law evolved to fulfill the proper end or function
of law. Substantive scrutiny of the commands called "law" is
3. Cf. L. FULLER, THE MORALITY OF LAW 108-110 (rev. ed. 1969) (rejecting force as a
"distinguishing mark" of law).
No. 1] Foreword

therefore needed to ensure that positive legal commands are

truly Law, as opposed in mere "directives." Positivism denies
that such scrutiny is a part of a correct concept of law. In this
respect, the Natural Law position holds that Legal Positivism is
fatally flawed.
To those who would assert that a judge's function is to dis-
cern and enforce the private rights of the parties to a dispute,
the philosophy of Legal Realism is a useful adjunct to positiv-
ism. By asserting that judges don't mean what they say, or that
the process of judicial reasoning is "nondeterminative" -
meaning that it does not dictate any particular outcome in a
given case - this view enables supporters of State-made law of
whatever substance to ridicule any judicial effort to discern the
"rights" litigants have against each other or any "rights" indi-
viduals may have against the State. If, at their root, rights are
and can be nothing other than naked judicial assertions, then
two views hostile to private rights arise. First, no legal criticism
can be made when ajudge declares a right or refuses to enforce
one, since there is no legal standard against which the judge's
action can be assessed. Second, what warrant is there for a
judge to thwart the "will of the people" as expressed by their
'representatives?"
The fact that Legal Positivism and Legal Realism each have
valuable insights to offer us all does not diminish the truth that
for decades now they both have been employed by some to ex-
pand State power in all of its guises. In recent years, however,
there has arisen in graduate and law schools across the country
an interest in legal philosophy, individual rights and private law
that has not been witnessed since the 1930s. Although I have
recently chronicled this story elsewhere at some length,4 in
1979, David A.J. Richards concisely noted these developments
and highlighted their fledgling nature. He said:
We are in the midst of a major jurisprudential paradigm shift
from the legal realist-legal positivist paradigm of the legal
official as a managerial technocrat ideally seeking the utilita-
rian goal of the greatest happiness of the greatest number,
to a natural law paradigm of rights. This shift . . . has not
yet been fully and fairly articulated; therefore one cannot be

4. See Barnett, Contract Scholarship and Reemeigence of Legal Philosophy (Book Review),
97 HARV. L. REv. 1223 (1984) (reviewing E. A. FARNSWORTH, CONTRACTS (1982)). In
the discussion that follows, I shall not retrace the existence and resurgence of this new
movement I called normative legal philosophy. I will, however, offer a new twist.
 HarvardJournalof Law and Public Policy [Vol. 8

certain of the final form the paradigm will take or of the ex-
tent5 of its influence on thought about and the practice of
law.
The members of this movement reject Legal Positivism in
favor of a view of law that involves morality, and they defend
traditional forms of legal reasoning and adjudication from the
Legal Realist critique.6 Since Richards wrote, however, two
distinct strains of this movement appear to have emerged.
While these two strains continue to share the basic jurispruden-
tial tenets of the new normative legal philosophy, it is becom-
ing increasingly clear that they reach these positions in
fundamentally different ways.
One group of philosophers - represented by such writers as
John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin and Bruce Ackerman - would be
described in political terms as "modern" liberals. In philosoph-
ical terms, they might be more precisely called Neo-Rousseauian
liberals. In a distinct and important break with the jurispru-
dential consensus of the last several decades, these thinkers
have rejected the positivist assertion that might, in some sense,
makes right. They maintain that preventing the use of State
power to aggrandize a few at the expense of the many is, per-
haps, the central problem of political and legal theory and,
therefore, in their writings they search for constraints on this
power. They also part company with the realists by recognizing
that the development and refinement of legal doctrine by
judges engaged in "legal reasoning" is a viable and valuable
means of achieving the ends both of law and of politics.
Yet, while they believe that at times it is a legitimate part of
legal analysis to judge the legality of State decrees by a norma-
tive evaluation of their substance and while they acknowledge a
judge's responsibility to strike down statutes when the legisla-
ture goes astray, the Neo-Rousseauian liberals also believe that
without the State, people are in some way incomplete; that in
their "private roles" people are merely selfish aggrandizers or
private wealth maximizers. Therefore, their search for norma-
5. Richards, luman Rights and the Moral Foundationsof the Substantive OininalLaw, 13
GA. L. REv. 1395-96 (1979). Richards observed this development in the writings of'
such diverse thinkers as Ronald Dworkin, Richard Epstein, George Fletcher. Charles
Fried and Frank Michelman and traces its origin to John Rawls', A Theo"y of Justice
(1971) and the subsequent works of Robert Nozick and Alan Gewirth. Id. at 1395 (cita-
tions omitted). See also Barnett, supra, note 4 (citing additional writers that are part of
this movement).
6. See Barnett, supra note 4, at 1230-33.
No. 1] Foreword

tive standards against which a political and legal order may be

judged centers on identifying public values or, perhaps more ac-
curately, public virtues. When these values are found and
implemented:
The individual is thereby invested with another kind of
goodness, a genuine virtue of the man who is not an isolated
being but part of a great whole. Liberated from the narrow
confines of his own being, he finds fulfillment in a truly so-
cial experience of fraternity
7 and equality with citizens who
accept the same ideal.
To the Neo-Rousseauians the State may be necessary to protect
individuals from each other, but that is not its only role. They
see the State as the ultimate source of social good.
In contrast, the other group of philosophers - represented
by such writers as Robert Nozick, F.A. Hayek, and Richard Ep-
stein - would be described in political terms as "classical" lib-
erals. In philosophical terms, they might be more accurately
called Neo-Lockean liberals. This group shares with Locke a
view of individual rights - property rights - as prior to the
State. These legal thinkers join with the Neo-Rousseauian lib-
erals in rejecting the legal positivist identification of law with
the command of the pursuit of public virtue, the Neo-Lockean
liberals conceive the function of a legal system as securing
those private rights that are the prerequisites of social order.
Their response to the Legal Realists is that what we call "legal
reasoning" and adjudication is the enterprise of discerning and
developing this framework of rights on a case-by-case basis.
Neo-Lockean liberals are extremely skeptical about the insti-
tution of the State. Some view the State as a necessary evil and
would limit the role of the State to formulating and enforcing
rights.' Others view the State as an unnecessary evil. They
question whether the State may legitimately perform even
these functions. 9 To a classical liberal, if society is to be pro-
tected from the public power, the common law bulwark against
both public and private exercises of power - the rights of all

7. Grimsley,Jean-JacquesRousseau in 7 THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY 223 (P. Ed-

wards ed. 1967). See also B. ACKERMAN, RECONSTRUCTING AMERICAN LAW (1984).
There he describes a vision of "a world where the affirmation of individual freedom
does not conceal the pervasive reality of social injustice, where the affirmation of com-
munal responsibility ennches the significance of personal liberty." Id. at 104 (emphasis
added).
8. See, e.g., R. NOZICK, ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA (1974).
9. See, e.g., M. ROTIBARD, THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY (1982).
 HarvardJournal of Law and Public Policy [Vol. 8

people to be secure in their person and possession from the

forceable interference by others - must be articulated and re-
fined by a legal system. It is probably not coincidental, then,
that the renewed interest in normative legal philosophy, one
strain of which is Neo-Lockean, has been accompanied by a re-
newed interest in the private law categories of contracts, torts
and property as an alternative to and limit on public
regulation. 10

THE FUNCTION OF LAW

Legal philosophy, like all philosophy, cannot take its subject

matter for granted. A legal philosopher must develop a the-
ory of what he is philosophizing about."
To understand how legal philosophy affects the practice of
law we must first have some idea of why we have law. The ex-
planation of why we have law offered by the classical or Neo-
Lockean liberals will help in formulating an understanding of
the needs for legal philosophy.' 2
The institution of law, they say, should be viewed as an an-
swer to a fundamental social problem: How are individuals in
society, i.e., living in close proximity to other individuals, to
peacefully coexist so that each of them may pursue his or her
vision of the good live without getting in the way of the same
pursuit by others? For example, if, in pursuit of my happiness,
I desire to read a book that is in your possession and, therefore,
I simply take it, there is no assurance that my taking the book
will not adversely affect your pursuit of happiness. And your
likely retaliation for my act will have an effect on my well-being
and the well-being of others.
The fundamental problem inherent in creating a social or-
der, then, is the necessity of discovering of a way to satisfy or
10. The recent organization of the Conference on Critical Legal Studies may be seen
as reflecting a response to the two approaches to legal philosophy described in the text
that is Marxist in political terms and .Veo-Hegelian in philosophical terms. The possibil-
ity that this position is reactionary in nature is discussed in Barnett. supra note 4. 1233-
36.
11. Moore. The Need for a Theory of Legal Theories: Assessing Pragnatic lnstruntentalhst
(Book Review), 69 CORNELL L. REV. 988. 994 (1984).
12. In the discussion that follows I will only occasionally attribute the positions I
describe to any particular writer or writers. For those who are interested in a more
comprehensive consideration of the themes I discuss, see F. A. HAYEK. 1-2 Lw, LEcis-
LATION, AND LIBERTY. (1973-76): L. FULLER, THE MORALITY Or LAw (1965): L. FULLER.
supra note 1; R. Nozick. supra note 8; Epstein, The Static Conception of the Contion Law. 9J.
LEGAL STUD. 253 (1977).
No. 1] Foreword

"coordinate" the varied desires and needs of each individual in

a world of scarcity, where any person's actions are likely to af-
fect the well-being of others. In the example given, there must
be a way of assuring that my use of the book will not adversely
affect your well-being. Without this social coordination, we
would have a society made up not of individuals living peace-
fully together, but of random actors intruding on one another,
constantly impeding each other's efforts to be happy. There
are several approaches that might be taken to solving this prob-
lem. I shall consider just two.
One approach would be simply to delegate to one individual
or group of individuals the responsibility of telling every per-
son what he or she is supposed to do and when. This individ-
ual or group would first decide that this week I get to read the
book, next week is your turn and then it would command this
behavior, punishing those who violate the command. Assum-
ing that the object of this rule is the happiness of the individu-
als who are the subjects of ruler(s), choices would be made by
the ruler(s) to facilitate the happiness of the people competing
for scarce resources. 3 We might call this solution the "Rule of
Men," for it depends upon the discretion of certain individuals
to solve the social problem of coordination. The problems
with this approach are several and obvious.
First, it would be physically impossible for a person or group
of persons to administer these directives. Every time anyone
wanted to read a book or use any other resource in a way that
might conflict with another's desires, the appropriate order
must be issued to the person wishing to read and to the person
possessing the book. While everyone would acknowledge that
such a system is not possible, it is important to note that we are
not here speaking merely of imperfections created by an imper-
fect world. Given the virtual infinity of such choices made
every day, with even the most powerful computers at the ruler's
disposal, we are describing a recipe for social disaster.
Second, the "directors" or planners would lack something so
vital that such an endeavor must fail even if the technology ex-
isted for the directives to be given. They would lack information,

13. There are several standards by which this may be done. One might wish to
"maximize" the total wealth in society; or one might wish to permit increases in indi-
vidual wealth that do not make anyone else "worse off." Much of political philosophy
has been devoted to determining the "correct" version of this type of standard.
 HarvardJournal of Law and Public Policy [Vol. 8

information about the needs and desires of the individuals liv-

ing in society, needs and desires that are not only infinitely va-
ried, but are constantly and forever changing. They would
have no way of knowing that I want to read a book, which book
I want to read or when I want to read it. No computer could
provide this information because no data bank could ever con-
tain the relevant information: the variable and ever-changing
preferences of each person in society.
Another solution to this problem is not to delegate this deci-
sion-making responsibility to an individual or group of individ-
uals, but to identify general principles and more precise rules
- backed by the threat of force - that would apply to every-
one equally, so that all persons would be able to discern the
boundaries within which they are free to make their own deci-
sions about what they will do. The name we might give to
these general principles and more particular rules that apply to
everyone (as opposed to the specific directives applying to only
one individual or group in specific situations) is Law. In con-
trast to the Rule of Men, this approach to social order might
then be called the "Rule of Law."
A naive objection to the concept of the Rule of Law is that,
because it must ultimately be administered by men, it is at root
no different from a Rule of Men approach. It is naive because
adherents to a Rule of Law position never believed or sug-
gested otherwise 4 and because it misses the fundamental dif-
ference between a Rule of Law solution and a Rule of Men
solution to the problem of social order: A Rule of Men solution
relies on the discretion of a subgroup of society to create social
order; a Rule of Law approach discerns the principles and rules
which all persons - including the "lawmakers" - must follow
14. Aquinas, for example, distinguished between men operating in the capacity of
lawmakers and men operating in the capacity ofjudges:
As the philosopher says, "it is better that all things be regulated by law than
left to be decided by judges," and this for three reasons. First, because it is
easier to find a few wise men competent to frame right laws than to find the
many who would be necessary to judge rightly of each single case. Secondly,
because those who make laws consider long beforehand what laws to make;
but judgment on each single case has to be pronounced as soon as it arises.
And it is easier for man to see what is right by taking many instances into
consideration than by considering one solitary fact. Thirdly, because lawgiv-
ers judge universally and of future events while those sit in judgment judge of
things present, toward which they are affected by love, hatred or some kind of
cupidity, so that their judgment is perverted.
T. AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA in 20 GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD 227
(1980).
No. 1] Foreword

if social order, in a real world of scarce resources and of varied

and ever-changing individuals preferences, is to be achieved.

LEGAL FORM: THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF LAw

The form that law takes is three-dimensional. The legal ana-

lyst must operate, often simultaneously, on the level of legal
theory, legal doctrine, and legal practice. When any of these
dimensions is missing or deficient, law cannot fulfill its function
of providing a framework within which people living in society
can conduct their affairs in an orderly, i.e., coordinated
manner.
Legal doctrine is what most lay people (and first-year law stu-
dents) identify as law: rules to govern the conduct of individu-
als. Some examples are "Contracts requires a manifestation of
assent and consideration;" "To constitute consideration, a per-
formance of a return promise must be bargained for;" "An ac-
ceptance of an offer sent through the mail is effective upon
proper dispatch;" etc. And an understanding of these rules
may require still other rules defining such terms as "assent," or
"bargain" or "proper dispatch." The process of deciding dis-
putes by formulating and applying such rules to the facts of
individual conduct has been characterized as formalistic or
mechanistic. Yet, formalist or not, law cannot perform its func-
tion without rules.
Without rules, individuals - or, more likely, their lawyers -
cannot distinguish proper from improper conduct. Without
rules, they cannot tell if a contemplated action is legally right
or wrong. They cannot tell, in short, whether their actions will
contribute to an orderly society or will instead create disorder.
Without this knowledge, they are comparatively more likely to
act in a way that would impede the actions or others and be
adjudged "wrongul." If social order requires not only the rec-
tification of wrongful conduct, but also the minimization or
prevention of wrongful conduct, then that knowledge of what
constitutes wrongul conduct must be available to individuals in
society before they act. Legal doctrine, for all its shortcomings,
is the only mechanism that will accomplish this vital social
mission.
The formulation of legal doctrine is not a random process.
We need some way of separating the doctrinal wheat from the
chaff. Legal theory is devised to help us make this selection. A
 HarvardJournalof Law and Public Policy (Vol. 8

theory of, say, strict liability in tort tells that people should not
impose the costs of their misconduct on strangers even if they
were acting with due care (and it also tells us why this is so).
This theory suggests certain principles of causation, such as,
"A hit B" that courts are to follow, and certain rules of con-
duct, such as "If the front of my car collides with the rear of
yours, I am liable for the damages that result, unless I can make
out a valid defense (which will show that the presumption cre-
ated by this rule that I caused the accident is rebutted by other
circumstances)." 5
Legal theory does not do away, however, with the need for
doctrine. Legal practice, the application of legal doctrine to
given facts, must be taken into account as well. Law is useless
unless it can be applied to specific tact situations. Even if they
knew and understood legal theory (and most do not), the aver-
age judge or lawyer, much less the average person, could not
be expected to reliably apply it to particular fact situations.
This is no criticism ofjudges and lawyers. Theory is simply too
abstract to apply directly to facts. Law will not perform its de-
centralizing coordinating function if individuals (or their law-
yers) cannot figure out how to fit their actions into the over-all
social order. So legal theory tells us which of a wide variety of
possible rules we should choose, so that, through the applica-
tion of these rules, the Law is capable of governing legal
practice.
First-year law professors are quite right to insist that under-
standing rules or "black-letter law" alone is insufficient to un-
derstand the law. But they are quite wrong if they dismiss rules
or black-letter law entirely or give their students the impression
that they do - an impression that usually proves quite false
come exam time. Legal doctrine is the absolutely vital interme-
diary step between theory and practice in the three-dimen-
sional chain of legal reasoning.

THE SUBSTANCE OF THE LAW: PROPERTY RIGHTS

If we are going to coordinate social interaction, not by spe-

cific directives issued by some person or persons to others, but
by principles and rules of general application that people can

15. See. e.g.. Epstein, . Theom qf Sinct Liability. 2J. LEGAL STUo. 151 (1973): Epstein,
Defenses and Subsequent Pleas in a Syslemnof Strict Liability. 3 J. LEGAL STtn. 165 (1974).
No. 1] Foreword

understand and follow without individual directives, which prin-

ciples and rules will fulfill the coordinating function of a legal
system? Finding the answer to this question is not easy. (That
is, it would not be easy if we really had to invent the answer.
Happily, much of the answer we already know.) However,
before the attempt can be mounted, one additional social fact
must be adduced that has until now been omitted from the
analysis.
So far, our analysis has assumed that goods such as books are
already in existence ready to be distributed to those who desire
to use them and that the problem is how the use of these goods
is to be coordinated. The truth is, however, that human effort
is required to create these goods in the first place. Someone
must conceive of and write the book; others must edit it, print it
and advertise its existence. How we decide to solve the first
two problems of distribution - the problems of administration
and obtaining information about individual preferences - will
have serious consequences for the problem of production. For if
insufficient incentive exists for the productive activities of con-
ceiving, writing, editing, printing and advertising to be carried
out, books will not be produced and there will be nothing to
distribute.
So the set of principles and rules we arrive at must take ac-
count of at least three basic problems: the problems of admin-
istration, information and production. The common law we
have inherited provides an answer to these problems. The an-
swer is the concept of (private) property. The common law ar-
rived at this answer spontaneously, that is, no identifiable
individual ever sat down, approximated the above analysis, and
reached a particular conclusion that was then disseminated and
accepted by the people who made up the common law system.
No, those who have written powerful arguments in favor of
property have done so in defense of a system that had already
evolved. But the fact that the concept of property was the 're-
sult of human action and not of human design' makes it no less
a solution to the most fundamental problems of coordinating
social interaction. 16
Before discussing how the concept of property addresses the
three problems of social order, it is necessary to first define the
16. For an elaboration of this grown or "spontaneous" order concept that contrasts
it with designed order, see F.A. HAYEK, 1 LAw, LEGISLATION, AND LIBERTY 8-54 (1973).
 HarvardJournal of Law and Public Policy (Vol. 8

concept, for the idea of property is so deeply ingrained in our

consciousness that we have taken to identifying the concept
with some of the things that the concept applies to. We have
grown accustomed to thinking of "property" as synonymous
with external possessions. So we say that this television or that
piano is "our property," In truth, the concept of private prop-
erty is much broader than this use of the term "property"
suggests.
The concept of property describes the moraljurisdiction17 that
people have over physical resources in the world, that is, the
manner in which they may use resources in the world free from
the physical interference of others. The concept of property
accords to individuals the discretion to use resources as they
choose. People have property rights to the extent that they
may use their possessions or "property" free from the forcible
interference of others (provided always that their use of their
possessions must not violate the like rights of others). Herbert
Spencer described as the "law of right social relationships that
- Eveiy man hasfreedom to do all that he will, provided he infringes
'1 8
not the equalfreedom of any other man."
Notice that, by this definition, our bodies may also be consid-
ered "our property," because our bodies are as much physical
resources as external possessions are. The term "human re-
sources" is an illustrative perversion of this idea. It is illustra-
tive because it acknowledges that bodies are resources, the
control and benefits of which are in fact distributed to particu-
lar individuals. It is perverse because it implies that one person
can be owned by another, i.e., that these rights can be
redistributed.
Perhaps, the fact that the moral jurisdiction one has over
one's body has become so widely regarded as inalienable ex-
plains why rights to free speech and freedom of sexual conduct,
for example, have come to be called "personal" and not prop-
erty rights. Perhaps, we have limited the term "property
rights" to claims to external resources, because such claims are
inherently more contingent and contestable. In any event,
there is no reason why the concept of property must be limited
in this way and many of the liberals who helped develop and
refine the term - such as the abolitionists of the nineteenth
17. I thank George Smith for suggesting this term to me.
18. H. SPENCER, SOCIAL STATICS 95 (London 1851) (emphasis in original).
No. 1] Foreword

century' 9 - did not so limit it.2 0

Some critics, of course, would argue that an assertion of the
social primacy of property rights, puts 'property rights above
human rights,' meaning that it somehow gives priority to pos-
sessions over people. This is a complete misunderstanding of
the claim being made. Rights to possession are human rights;
no one besides a human can have such rights. Certainly pos-
sessions themselves can have no property rights. Moreover, if,
as just discussed, the concept of property also includes the
human right to one's body, what more could "human rights"
mean than this? The critics' usually unstated answer is it means
a right to someone else's possessions or body, which is no less a
concern about possessions than the view they are attacking.
The concept of private property to this point is abstract. It
requires further analysis to connect it up with human conduct.
Further theoretical (as opposed to doctrinal) distinctions must
be made. To better understand the concept and its application,
we might, for example, find it useful to distinguish issues of
property acquisition, from those of property use and property
transfer. Not coincidentally, the common law developed a paral-
lel set of categories known as property law, tort law and con-
tract law.
[T]he function of the law is essentially threefold, where for
each function there is an associated branch of the law. The
first function is to determine the original property holdings
of given individuals, including rights over one's own body.
Such is governed by the law of property, especially with the
rules for the acquisition of unowned things. The second is
the law of contracts (including conveyancing) which governs
cooperative efforts among individuals and exchanges of
things that are already owned. The third is the protection of
persons and property (and their methods of transfer) from

19. Some abolitionists characterized slavery as the crime of "manstealing." The

connotation of this term is quite obviously that one's person is one's property. An
example of this usage is found in the writings of Stephen Foster:
Man-stealing. What is it to steal a man? Is it not to claim him as your prop-
erty? To call him yours? God has given to every man an inalienable right to
himself- a right of which no conceivable circumstance of birth, or forms of
law, can divest him; and he who interferes with the free and unrestricted exer-
cise of that right, who, not content with the proprietership of his own body,
claims the body of his neighbor, is a manstealer.
Foster, The Brotherhood of Thieves, or a True Picture of Anerican Church and Clergy (1843) in
Tie ANrISLAVERY ARGUMENT 138 (W. &J. Pease eds. 1965).
20. See. e.g., C. MACPHERSON, THE POLITICAL TIIEORY OF POSSESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM
137-48 (corrected ed. 1964).
 HarvardJournal of Law and Public Policy [Vol. 8
the aggression of third Jarties; such is the traditional func-
tion of the law of torts.
Once these subjects have been distinguished, our analysis is
three-dimensional, consistent with the categories outlined
above. First, we can then proceed to identify theories that are
both externally consistent with the social function of law that
generated the original inquiry and internally consistent with
each other. Second, principles and rules that elaborate each
theory must be identified and their consistency with the doc-
trines elaborating other theories must be assessed. Third, this
doctrinal analysis must be applied to the facts of individual
cases. Human fallibility and the constantly evolving preferences
of individuals will virtually assure that we will never have a per-
fectly consistent set of theories and doctrine to be unerringly
applied to facts. However, all that the functional approach to
law imposes on us is the obligation to make the legal system as
consistent with social order as possible.
How does the concept of private property - properly ex-
pressed through correct theory, doctrine and application to
facts - solve the three social problems of administration, in-
formation and production? On the one hand, a complete an-
swer would be too long to present here. On the other hand, the
basic answer to this should be reasonably obvious.
Briefly, the correct theories of the private law categories of
contract, tort, and property entail a decentralized administra-
tion of resource allocation. All decisions concerning the use
and enjoyment of one's property can be made without external
direction, provided only that the boundaries of others' rights
are discernable and not violated. When a boundary is crossed,
the victim of the violation is generally well-positioned to know
about it. If our theories of contract, tort and property law are
correctly formulated, the victim's knowledge and interest in
seeking legal redress will deter conflicts over resource use, by
increasing the perceived likelihood that rights violations will be
defended against and rectified. Moreover," the adversary system
of adjudication delegates the evidence gathering function to
those who have a direct incentive to do it well.
Informational problems are reduced by the understandable
nature of a well-crafted private law system of property rights.

21. Epstein. The Static Conception of the Common Law, supra note 12, at 255.
No. 1] Foreword

Even children know where their family's yard ends and the next
family's begins. But as important as the law of property and
tort is to the provision of information, the law of contract is of
special significance in this regard. For, if our law of contract is
done right, it will acknowledge our rights to freely alienate ex-
ternal possessions and this will bring about a price system that
provides vital information about the highest-valued use of re-
sources - information that can be discovered in no other way.
Incentives then can exist to exchange rights to improve the
well-being of the parties to the transaction.
So, to return to the example used earlier, your property right
in the book forces me to obtain your consent to borrow the
book, thereby inducing me to obtain your consent by, for ex-
ample, offering you something in exchange for the book that
you value more highly and which I value less highly than having
the book. By this process of exchange, we will both be made
subjectively better off and our otherwise conflicting prefer-
ences are made compatible and, in this sense, become
"coordinated."' 22
Finally, and perhaps most obviously, a properly worked out
concept of private property will provide powerful incentives for
production. Those who transform resources they own from
things of little or no value to others to things of greater value
to others will be encouraged (but not forced) to do so, because
their ownership gives them the right to withhold the use and
enjoyment of their produce, unless something they value more
- their net gain being called their "profit" - is given in ex-
change. This means that more things of value will be produced
by more people making the material wealth (and that degree of
spiritual well-being which depends upon material wealth) that
much more accessible to everyone.

THE NEED FOR LEGAL PHILOSOPHY AND THIS SYMPOSIUM

This account of what law is and why the private law catego-
22. All that was ever meant by the metaphor of"the invisible hand" is that the price
mechanism works like an invisible hand to allocate property rights in a way that best
coordinates the preferences of individuals in society. The charge that classical liberals
put all their "faith" in an invisible hand tends to confuse the substance of their rights
and market analysis with the metaphor used to elucidate the analysis for an eighteenth
century audience. There is more "science" -in the sense of knowledge about the ac-
tual state of the real world - and less "'faith" at work here, than in the arguments of
some of those who believe in the State as an institution that is capable of addressing the
fundamental problems of social order.
 HarvardJournalof Law and Public Policy [Vol. 8

ries of property, torts, and contracts are so essential to the in-

stitution of law fulfilling its societal function enables us now to
say why we need legal philosophy. The short answer is that the
classical liberal story of law I just told was legal philosophy and,
to the extent that legal philosophers and law professors have
gotten the story wrong, it is very likely that other legal thinkers
like judges, lawyers, and legislatures will produce legal rules -
whether by statute or by judicial decisions - that impede
rather than facilitate human well-being. Still worse, they may
produce no rules at all. Indeed, as we have seen, American
legal philosophy - with its twin preoccupations with Legal
Positivism and Legal Realism - has had the story wrong for
some time.
The longer answer is that this view of law, which is once
again being taken seriously, undergirds the Western legal tradi-
tion of individual property rights and the adjudication of those
rights by judges who discern and refine the idea of property by
developing and applying legal theory and doctrine as consist-
ently as possible on a case by case basis. Without legal philoso-
phy providing this foundation, our private law rights and
common law process of adjudication - the twin institutions of
classical liberal legal thought - can be made to appear as
empty or irrational exercises we have inherited from our an-
cient past and blindly continue to follow.
This perception has two pernicious consequences. First, it
makes these institutions ripe for rejection by those who con-
sider themselves to be "rational" and "progressive." Second,
without an understanding of its philosophical roots, lawyers at-
tempting to adhere to these institutions are likely to run across
intractable and seemingly insoluble problems. If so, without
the insights of legal philosophy which discovers and refines first
principles, practitioners will find themselves hopelessly adrift."'
The Neo-Lockean or classical liberal legal philosophers do
not have all the answers to the questions they raise. But their
insights are extremely valuable in large measure because they
are beginning to force the profession to again ask the right
questions. As new generations of legal thinkers continue the
23. For an example of such a doctrinal problem in the contract law area, see Barnett.
Mupra note 4, at 1238-1245. There I describe the tension between the bargain theory of
consideration and the reliance principle of recovery embodied in § 90 of the RESTATE-
MENT (SFcOND) OF CONTRACTS (1979) and suggest how this tension might be resolved
by a more fundamental rights analysis.
No. 1] Foreword

task of applying the insights of legal philosophy to the evolving

social problems of our age, then and only then can legal philos-
ophy touch and guide the activities of lawyers, judges, legisla-
tors, and law teachers (as Fuller argued that it must). It does so
by informing our choice of legal theories, and, through theory,
informing our choice of legal doctrines, so that we might
achieve the promise of a free and prosperous society.
To this end, in the 1960s the Institute for Humane Studies
established a program to support young intellectuals in pursu-
ing their interests in law and philosophy. As part of this pro-
gram, in 1982, with the support of the Veritas Fund, Inc., the
Institute established the Leonard B. Cassidy Summer Research
Fellowships in Law and Philosophy. Cassidy Fellowships are
awarded to promising law students and graduate students in
philosophy to pursue their interests in legal philosophy or in
private law theory. Each grant requires the production of a
scholarly paper. This symposium represents the first fruits of
this endeavor.
The papers that follow run the gamut from theory to doc-
trine to practice and back again. Each shares a common com-
mitment to develop and refine the concept of individual rights
in response to new social and technological problems. They
range form Stephen Macedo's effort to put the modern liberal
political vision of Ronald Dworkin into a broader classical lib-
eral perspective, to Deborah Mathieu's examination of the
rights of women and those of the fetuses they carry within them
in the context of new medical technology; from Greg Temple's
application of contract principles to the subject of intimate re-
lations that is now governed by principles of status, to William
Manson's suggested reformulation of nuisance law.
Of course, few ideas of importance are ever born whole.
They require for their development the shaping influence of
knowledgeable criticism and repair. Sometimes we learn al-
most as much from the insightful criticism of a flawed effort as
we do from a success. In the collection that follows, each paper
receives the critical attention of one of an impressive group of
scholars - Henry B. Veatch, Joel Feinberg, R. H. Helmholz,
and Lawrence H. White - scholars who are not easily satisfied.
The ideas presented by the four authors can only benefit from
this careful attention.
The many people who are associated with the Institute for
 HarvardJournal of Law and Public Policy [Vol. 8

Humane Studies, the Veritas Fund, Inc., and the HarvardJour-

nal of Law and Public Policy have made this symposium possible.
While no view expressed in this issue (including mine) neces-
sarily represents the views of any of these institutions, it is their
common hope that this symposium will contribute, in some
small way, to the development of legal thinkers who are com-
mitted to a legal philosophy that will be of use to the lawyer
and to society. Again, in the words of Lon Fuller:
What we need is someone with the imagination, the pa-
tience, and the skill to work out a seating arrangement that
will put us all within reach of the banquet, but will keep out
elbows from knocking against one another. Only the lawyer
is capable 24
of doing this job. It is our responsibility to train
him for it.

24. L. FtLLER, supra note I. at 281.