avoid

From some perspective The Law offers comfort and security in the same manner as a house or physical shelter, note the fox and three pigs. However the house can be built to withstand common weather and animal intrusions, but not all.

The law is even more prone to fail in it's perceived protection, if in fact it is suitable for purpose at all. It is evident, by design, that the law only protects from other people not the weather or other animals and yet is basically flawed from that foundation.

The architect of the law considers the threats and yet if a person were to agree to the law and abide by it, through common sense, then their is no need for the law, let alone enforcement. Enforcement is the issue where the law has not been adopted by the actor. So do we blame the weather or the architect.

The architect could surely foresee the failings in their design, that it only applied to those that agreed and didn't need it and labelled all others outlaws.

For the weather and dumb animals do not conform there are processes to bring them under the thumb of the architect, so what of those of little or greater intelligence are they any more independent and free of the weight of the law?

That the law weighs heavy is a sure sign that it at war with freedom.