As you point out, the legal software as a huge technical debt, and must deal with compatibility issues as well. The consequence is that loopholes will always ex

As you point out, the legal software as a huge technical debt, and must deal with compatibility issues as well. The consequence is that loopholes will always exist. Perhaps "rule by moral indignation" doesn't scale, but fixing the law doesn't work, either. > My primary issue with assertions of immorality is that it's unquantified and completely subjective. Who talks like a software developer now? ;-) It is more or less as you say, though. But I believe it's better to let people judge for themselves. The same way people do make their own judgement about whether or not it's ethical for company X to outsource its production in country Y where working conditions are known to be terrible. > But by making assertions of immorality or "evil"ness on the part of perceived bad actors, you're not offering any solutions, and instead starting the conversation from a place where no progress can be made. On the contrary, it is one step further than "let's fix the taxation law" hand-waving. It also goes deeper than just law and economy technicalities. It lead some countries to enforce more transparency with regards to the income of their MPs, for instance. It makes legal tax avoidance tricks and various forms of "soft corruption" a little more difficult.