Hart's perspective on Legal Rules

According to H.L.A. Hart, legal rules are not mere descriptions of habitual behavior ("what happens"), but rather prescriptive standards that demand, require, or forbid certain conduct ("what is to be done"). Rules impose obligations and function as guides for conduct and standards of criticism, rather than simple predictors of future actions.

Key Aspects of Hart's Perspective on Rules:

• Prescriptive Nature: Rules are imperative, focusing on actions that ought to be performed or avoided, not just tracking behavioral patterns.
• Internal Point of View: Rules are accepted by individuals as common standards for behavior, creating a normative (ought-to) rather than just a predictive (will-happen) framework
  .
Primary vs. Secondary Rules: Primary rules directly require or forbid behavior ("what is to be done"), while secondary rules enable the identification, modification, and enforcement of these primary rules.
Rules vs. Habits: Unlike habits, which are descriptive, rules create obligations and are characterized by critical reflection when broken.
Non-Optional Obedience: Legal and moral rules, as opposed to mere habits, are "invitum" or non-optional. 

In essence, Hart argues that a legal system cannot be understood merely as a set of predictions about how people will act, but must be understood as a system of rules that people accept as guides for behavior.