Most modern people will do anything to avoid realizing that all of the systems we have today for which we have unjustifiable pride exist only because the natural and organic way of doing things failed long ago.
As someone once said of the Ten Commandments, “If you have to tell people not to murder each other, you have already lost the game.”
Most people consider laws like a good tyrant-protector. We are saved from The Rich™® victimizing us because we have these laws, you see, and they make sure we are all treated equally.
The problem is that equal treatment, like all centralized notions, does not consider circumstances very well.
Consider a traffic law. We have accidents where a car runs into the rear of another; who is to blame?
Those trying to make that judgment will almost never have video of the incident or know the actual road conditions. Both parties will lie.
Most lawyers come up with a simple solution: the car in the rear is to blame, since he could have stopped.
However, this then creates a weapon for drivers. If someone is on your tail, just hit the brakes. If he hits you, it costs him money since you will be presumed to be innocent.
This gives us two forms of injustice based on presumptions of innocence.
This brings in a third participant that the law usually forgets, namely social cost. If the front is assumed to be innocent, you get abuses; if the back is, you get more dead squirrels and splattered children.
On the other hand, if you do not have a rule, suddenly you get a backlog of he-said-she-said cases where each party can be assumed to be lying, even if just a little bit, to appear more innocent.
The consumerist-socialists of today solve this problem with no fault insurance. That way, everyone else pays for the bad drivers on the road, which means more bad drivers, which means soon driving is very expensive.
A realist would say instead that we should let no incident pass without judgment. One of these two is either a bad driver or in a bad way such that they are making mistakes. You need to find out which one it is.
Even more, you need to look at the whole of their lives. If we see lots of car accidents, it is time for this person to no longer be driving. If we see none, it may mean that something else is going wrong for them.
You may discover, for example, that one driver is an incompetent, sociopath, or mental health case, and decide the binary eugenics question. What you tolerate, you get more of; unless you want incompetence, manipulation, and insanity you probably want to send that driver on to exile.
Laws do not handle such things. They purely address property and transaction in a bureaucratic context, figuring that if we fix the details in such a way that is convenient for society, everything will work out well.
In the longer-term view, however, laws just perpetuate problems and avoid the question of “who should be among us?” which is the single most vital query for any civilization to answer.