More generally, are people doing things because they aren't stopped from doing so a loophole or not?

Are loopholes a feature or a bug? Does it depend on intentions or how it's used to be called this, or not?

More importantly, why don't judges tend to rule in the "spirit of the law" over what's actually the law, if that's so obviously the thing that should matter the most? Are you willing to sign contracts with me on that basis? And see which philosophy wins? Or do you just want to complain because I didn't put ?

There's how things are and how they "should" be and simply describing it in terms of a constellation of competing actors and overlapping interests at different layers and forces that motivate them (not always easy to tell, and I've already taken into account the whole spectrum of characterizations: intentional v not, malicious v not, passive v active) means I'm not reasoning (unlike you). Got it.