When philosophers and social theorists address positive law, we’ve come to expect them – in their programmatic intellectual roles and in their particular departments of existence – to favour some overarching, transcendental stance. A disjunctive and superior intellectual relation towards law, then, be it to redirect or rectify, to reform or even to redeem.¹ Gilles Deleuze and Bruno Latour, intriguingly, seem not to have satisfied this conventional but rather constant expectation for supremacist voicings of a universal perspective or cosmopolitan principle. o the contrary, these noted figures – one philosopher, the other social theorist – surprisingly furnish defences of positive law. Is their defensive stance faulty? Or might such leaning against the wind become the new model stance, your counter-current pathway to tomorrow?