This reminds me of an article I read several years ago (I wish I had the link!) that explained that because the Law has contradictions, you can literally prove

This reminds me of an article I read several years ago (I wish I had the link!) that explained that because the Law has contradictions, you can literally prove anything! The article then went on to say this isn't necessarily a bad thing: two lawyers put their arguments before the judge, and the judge can then decide what's best for that particular situation. The author of the article was at least somewhat libertarian, because he suggested that this is necessary when there's a single body of Law to deal with; the other way to deal with these problems is to go with arbitrators instead -- but in that case, the "Law" would be decided between the two parties and the arbitrator, which has its own twists and turns!