>If the rules create incentives that lead to bad outcomes, it is a problem with the rules.

So then why complain about the people following the rules? They're just making the best of the situation they're in.

>I generally regard people building large buildings as a good outcome, so about the max-without-x-permit-sized buildings, I probably would not be too upset, but I would have to think about what buildings would exist in the absence of the rule.

So then it's about whether or not you like the outcome that rule provides?

Regardless of how much you care about compliance with the law it is farcical to pick and choose laws that get special treatment (within the same class of laws, we're not talking about dodging sales tax vs murder here). You don't get to pick one area of minor noncompliance to be good guys and one area to be bad guys, equality under law and all that.

>Do you level the same criticism at people who are upset that they are employed for just less than full time?

I levy the criticism at the people screeching online about how the companies that do it are evil, as if they have a choice and it's not a collective action problem.

Sure Home Depot could take a stand and give everyone 40hr and eat the cost of the healthcare requirements but then Lowe's would eat their lunch. The only way to fix these problems is to change the rules for everyone.