Immanuel Kant believed an ethical imperative requires laws “be chosen as if they should hold as universal legal guidelines of nature”. Jeremy Bentham and his pupil Austin, following David Hume, believed that this conflated the “is” and what “should be” drawback. Bentham and Austin argued for law’s positivism; that real law is totally separate from “morality”.
Coase used the instance of a nuisance case named Sturges v Bridgman, where a loud sweetmaker and a quiet doctor were neighbours and went to court to see who ought to have to move. So the law must pre-empt what would happen, and be guided by the most efficient solution. The idea is that law and regulation are not as essential or efficient at serving to people as legal professionals Law and authorities planners believe. Coase and others like him wished a change of strategy, to put the burden of proof for positive results …