The Foundational Tension: Sein Versus Sollen
At the heart of jurisprudence lies a strict conceptual cleavage articulated by legal positivism: the fundamental divide between Sein (what is) and Sollen (what ought to be). As Hans Kelsen famously formalized in his Pure Theory of Law, a legal norm belongs irrevocably to the sphere of Sollen. A rule does not derive its validity from empirical occurrences; rather, it dictates normative imperatives regardless of actual human conduct. That theft occurs continuously across human societies does not invalidate the prohibition against theft; the norm retains its binding prescription precisely because it asserts how individuals ought to behave, not how they historically do.
When applied to historic crusades such as the American Prohibition of alcohol, however, this theoretical isolation faces an existential strain. If law is purely an imperative force unyielding to social realities, the eventual capitulation and legalization of alcohol might appear as a tragic surrender of normativity to empirical lawlessness. Yet, a deeper jurisprudential analysis reveals that the retreat from absolute prohibition was not a denial of legal philosophy, but rather an assertion of its most fundamental principles.
The Pragmatic Imperative: Efficacy as a Condition of Validity
While legal validity (Geltung) is distinct from empirical efficacy (Wirksamkeit), it cannot remain permanently divorced from it. A legal system or specific statute that achieves zero compliance ceases to function as law and collapses into mere aspirational rhetoric. Kelsen himself acknowledged that while efficacy is not the source of validity, it remains a indispensable minimum condition for it. When millions of citizens continuously defy a statute, and state power fails utterly to enforce compliance, the norm loses its systemic authority.
This dynamic invokes the classical legal maxim ultra posse nemo obligatur—no one is obligated to perform the impossible. For a normative command to retain moral and legal legitimacy, its compliance must be humanly and socially attainable. When the prohibition of a deeply ingrained cultural habit proves impossible to enforce without totalitarian overreach, the imperative loses its rationale. The law cannot demand the impossible without undermining the dignity and authority of the legal order itself.
The Conflict of Norms: Proportionality and Lesser Evils
The repeal of prohibition laws globally was rarely an endorsement of intemperance; instead, it represented a calculated resolution of conflicting normative goals. Law does not exist in a vacuum of single-issue morality; its overarching purpose (Telos) is to preserve public order, secure peace, and safeguard individual well-being.
When the enforcement of a single moral imperative inadvertently creates unchecked criminal syndicates, widespread institutional corruption, public health crises from illicit manufacturing, and severe erosion of constitutional order, the legal system faces a clash of values. The doctrine of proportionality demands that the state weigh the harm of the prohibited act against the harm generated by the prohibition itself. Legalizing, taxing, and regulating alcohol served a higher legal purpose: replacing an uncontrollable underworld with state-sanctioned oversight, thereby preserving the primary normative baseline of societal stability.
The Evolving Consensus: Public Consciousness and Democratic Legitimacy
Finally, legal sociologist Georg Jellinek emphasized the “normative force of the factual” (normative Kraft des Faktischen), recognizing that law relies heavily on the psychological acceptance of the governed. When a vast majority of a population ceases to view a prohibited behavior as inherently malum in se (wrong in itself), the law loses its democratic legitimacy.
The legalization of alcohol across modern history reflects a sophisticated recalibration rather than a defeat. By transitioning from total banishment to strict regulation, the state converted an unworkable criminal prohibition into an enforceable framework of administrative control. In doing so, jurisprudence demonstrated its ultimate strength: adapting the boundaries of Sollen to the inescapable boundaries of Sein in order to preserve the rule of law itself.
If you enjoyed this piece:
Explore the “A Pre-trained Future” collection
Discover more from the Abstract collection
Leave a Reply