With that in mind...
> Being completely logical and self-consistent is not one of these goals, nor would it make sense as a primary goal for rules meant to try to balance societal vs personal rights.
Do we really know that it wouldn't make sense, or is that just an assumption because the existing system doesn't do it? (Alternatively, perhaps a consistent logical theory simply hasn't been identified and articulated.)
This reminds me of how "sovereign citizens" argue their position. Their logic isn't consistent, it’s built around rhetorical escape hatches. They'll claim that their vehicle is registered with the federal DOT, which is a commercial registration, but then they'll also claim to be a non-commercial "traveler". They're optimizing for coverage of objections, not global consistency.
What you seem to be telling me is that the prevailing legal system is the same, just perhaps with more of the obvious rough edges smoothed out over the centuries.
brb, going to try encoding the USC in Rocq.