Look, human society is complex with millions of moving parts. Every law that has ever been written has winners and losers, because it abstracts away many of the

Look, human society is complex with millions of moving parts. Every law that has ever been written has winners and losers, because it abstracts away many of the details of human behavior and buckets them into simple categories. But just because a law has been written in a particular way, doesn't mean that we forget the intent behind the law, which probably wasn't to have these winners and losers, but it was the best law we could write. People respond to this conundrum in at least two ways. One way is, let's specify even more complex rules and regulations that takes care of the weird cases. The bad thing about this is that it increase compliance costs for everyone, and it only takes care of some cases and never all of them. The other way is to recognize that it's impossible to write perfect laws, so we should take some liberty in interpreting them on a case-by-case basis. The bad thing about this approach is that there is always uncertainty about how your particular case will be interpreted. Usually, both approaches are taken (legislators write ever more complex laws; judges show compassion or come down hard). And this is the correct way to go about it, because it usually allows for fewer winners and losers. But you are advocating that the second way be never practiced, and I don't think that's a good approach. Law is code. And like any piece of code, always has bugs, that need to worked around in the short term, before they are fixed.