Isn’t Legal Positivism a rather untenable theoretical viewpoint? I say that for two reasons.
1) Subjectivity is a necessary condition to the “fair” application of the law, what ever that means, and subjectivity, by it’s very nature, often eschews pure logic. According to positivism, a law passed by the proper means must be followed – whether subjectively just or not – until another law, properly passed, overrides it.
2) Positivism stands firmly against judicial review, finding, as previously stated, that laws properly passed must be followed; the courts having no right to adjudicate on the propriety of a law. But is judicial review not a natural step in the evolution of common law?
Just a thought…