> confusing what is and what ought to be is a hugely annoying feature of many armchair legal analysts To be fair, the delusion is shared by many, including law

> confusing what is and what ought to be is a hugely annoying feature of many armchair legal analysts To be fair, the delusion is shared by many, including law itself. If "what ought to be" was the same as "what is," then what form of law would be needed?