ABSTRACT
In their introduction to An Institutional Theory of Law,1 MacCormick and Weinberger state that radical critique to any normative theory of knowledge is: there is no matter of fact to be known.2 The realm of the legal ‘ought’ is sheer mystery.3 The only reality to be studied here is the reality behind the mystification talk of ‘norms’, ‘oughts’, ‘obligations’ and the like. The admitted fact that people do talk and write about ‘norms’ and ‘oughts’ is open for study, along with the other facts of the case. There has to be some realistic (which is usually taken to imply materialist) accounting both for what happens and for the fact the people deludedly and delusively talk in normative terms about ‘law’.4
