You know the old idea about the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law? Sure, the letter of the law can help prevent conflict, since the spirit of the law is inherently subjective. However, something about the spirit of the law connect the idea of the human soul, and the meaning of life. Justice, fairness, righteousness: these are ideas that come out of the soul, and they are why we care about law.
I feel like there’s a certain kind of sociopath who lacks that natural human connection to feelings of justice and right-ness. Thus, this kind of person would be preoccupied with the letter of the law, to frame everything they are allowed to get away with, without regarding the inner self-government of the soul and conscience. The Calvinists, the Pharisees, and modern-day lawyers all fall into that category of exalting the law over the soul.
Even when you need to know the letter of the law to resolve a conflict, there’s a context. There’s a judge, a jury, a situation, extant facts, costs and damages, power differences, and the particular values of the people in question. The resolution of a conflict would incorporate all these elements, and not merely the letter of the law. In a libertarian society, there would be decentralized law and a market of law anyway. The letter of the law would apply only after a balanced context is achieved. I think modern-day lawyers would struggle in a libertarian environment.
In the end, I think many sociopaths choose to become lawyers, because the letter of the law becomes cover for them to freely disregard the spirit of the law – something they fundamentally (as sociopaths) don’t understand or don’t like. I feel like you can explain many of our contemporary problems by invoking this idea.
Our system of government itself is a product of the minds of lawyers. How else to victimless crimes exist?
