what does the commentator mean when he states this I want to emphasize one of the great marvels of law and economics has a system. To my mind, it is the most coherent alternative to a morality based view of law and in fact to some extent, all other approaches are moral at their core even when they deny being morally based, they are just setting up a different standard of morality and in all areas, from natural law through critical studies, a big issue is who's the arbiter of what morality is followed. Law and economics on the other hand has an entirely different approach and this is coherent as campaign system. If you buy the premise that the efficient makes for good government, then you can resolve all legal problems within the realm of what is efficient, and to that extent it works effectively, although you still need to have a moral foundation for determining that the efficient is the equivalent of the good. There are also some costs that come with the pursuit of efficiency, perhaps entirely because of the fact that law economics claims to be an amoral approach to addressing what makes for effective law