The competing attitudes or currents are identified as idealism, traditionalism, and economic behaviorism (considered to be substantive positions) as well as paradigm case analysis, literalism, and textual structuralism (considered to be interpretive strategies). Idealism would expand rule 10b-5 liability while traditionalism would contain it. While economic behaviorism neither favors or rejects rule 10b-5 liability, it would determine 10b-5 liability by measuring the economic incentive effects of the liability on the parties concerned. Paradigm case analysis determines liability by the similarity and fit between the facts of a given case and certain paradigm fact situations. Literalism favors the language of a statute or regulation in the interpretive process, while textual structuralism emphasizes, in interpreting any one part of the regulation, the harmony among various parts of the regulatory scheme. Each of the competing currents is discussed in detail, along with positions on the currents taken by various Supreme Court justices. 198 footnotes.