This looks awesome, but is a short book much too big to digest in one sitting. It seems full of quite original thought. Yet at the same time, Aristotle, Hobbe

This looks awesome, but is a short book much too big to digest in one sitting. It seems full of quite original thought. Yet at the same time, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Redbeard, Rand, Machiavelli, Schmitt, Posner, and most of the important thinkers on jurisprudence seem absent. From the first few dozen paragraphs I get an impression the author has a narrow understanding of the "rule of law" - as a pragmatist - as opposed to the "Rule of Law" (capitalised) as a principle. There's plenty of books on how the law fails to live up to its promise. To pick one at random see The Secret Barrister: Why the Law is Broken [1] (which is an amazing read!) However, that is to miss a central philosophical principle, which I would say is something like this: The Rule of Law is that faith we put in the law _even though_ we KNOW it is imperfect, biased, inconsistent and run by fallible humans. We are not unaware of the contradiction. The contradiction is central to the principle. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/06/17/the-big-issue-why-the-law-is-broken/ https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/06/17/the-big-issue-why-...