I don't really like this "letter of the law" v "spirit of the law" distinction. "Spirit of the law" means open to interpretation. It is important in any environ

I don't really like this "letter of the law" v "spirit of the law" distinction. "Spirit of the law" means open to interpretation. It is important in any environment for people to be clear how to operate within it, and if any of that is depends on intuition and interpretation, that amounts to a bigger loophole than any carefully examined technicality. The distinction then becomes not what loopholes to exploit but who gets to exploit them. With a "letter of the law" approach it takes a way the ability for arbiters to selectively interpret rules and puts the onus on the engineers of the system to be more careful and thoughtful in creating the environment. If I can create a Ricardian compiler that can deterministically interpret human language and apply it to machine behavior, maybe the solution is to raise the standards we expect of those that craft our laws. "Spirit of the law" seems to be a cop out excusing sloppy lawmaking and leaving the door open for selective enforcement.