wille), into the theoretical scheme, thereby violating the principle of parsimony.This will takes two shapes.According to natural law, the will is the “notion of a common will of all the active individuals belonging to the society in question,”126 while the will according to the Historical School of jurisprudence and Hegel corresponds to “a super-individual will which has individuals as its organs.”127 The Historical School of jurisprudence and Hegel’s idea can be further subdivided even further, for according to the different varieties of this idea the general will can be understood either as being “a psycho-social organism analogous to the natural organism”128, or be “conceived as a purely spiritual reality, autonomous in relation to the psycho-social context, which acts within individuals and determines them to perform certain actions.”129 According to the first explanation, the individuals must both command themselves (which Hägerström considers to be an absurdity) and simultaneously demand that all other individuals shall obey and follow the rules of law. Hägerström’s argument is that if an individual demands that all other individuals shall obey the rules of law, then this individual would invariably insist on obedience, even when violating the rules of law himself and hence insist on obedience also when the coercive measures where directed against himself. However, such a universal and infallible obedience to the rules of law, and similar insistence on their application, is unlikely, but this is exactly how the rules of law must be upheld in order for the will-theory itself to function. A fact that is even more damning to the p a r t v, c h a p t e r 3 332 126 Hägerström, “Är gällande rätt?,” p. 62; “Is Positive Law?,” p. 20. Swedish: “… begrepp om den samfällda viljan hos alla de till det ifrågakommande samhället hörande handlingsskickliga individerna.” 127 Hägerström, “Är gällande rätt?,” p. 67; “Is Positive Law?,” p. 25. Swedish: “… en överindividuell vilja, som har individerna till organer.” 128 Hägerström, “Är gällande rätt?,” p. 67; “Is Positive Law?,” p. 25. Swedish: “… en psykofysisk organism, analog med den naturliga.” 129 Hägerström, “Är gällande rätt?,” p. 68; “Is Positive Law?,” p. 26. Swedish: “ … fattas emellertid också på ett annat sätt. Den blir också i förhållande till det psykofysiska sammanhanget självständig, rent andlig verklighet, som verkar i individernas inre och bestämmer dem till vissa handlingar.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=