Questions of jurisprudence can become quite complicated. When we want to ask whether a particular judge went outside the law in making a decision, (or whether he was right to do so) we need to know what the law is. But in order to know what the law is, we need to know what Law is. In general, I think Hart is more or less correct, though I would not have put things in exactly the same way he did. In order to show why, I will go through Austin, then Hart and then Dworkin. I will try to show why Austin’s view is inadequate in some ways and what is good about it as well. Then, I will try to show why Hart’s view is an improvement. I will also try to show why Dworkin’s development of Hart’s view misses the point and rests on a type of confusion. Finally, I will examine Lon Fuller’s views which while interesting, cannot do the work that they are often put to. The views presented above are basically from positivists and their detractors. However, none of the above really present any natural law viewpoint. Does anyone recommend any texts?