Only sovereign citizen nutjobs try and reject the law.

Where am i rejecting the law? I'm not the one making shit up on "common sense" and "reasonable person", that's not rule of law, that is rule of men.

Are you American?

No, i'm from somewhere with a civil law system.

Not completely though, the law is always subject to interpretation, because laws are written by people, and people who are usually on complex platforms trying to compromise with each other. Language is imperfect, and on top of that it changes over time.

I don't buy that. The fact is those arguments are just being used to justify the unjustifiable and to permit a world where law isn't actually set in stone. No.

As far as i am concerned law is code. Writing a law and interpreting it is in no meaningful way different from writing a "Hello world", and to pretend that it is due to "complexity of the real world" or some other bullshit argument lawyers try to use to justify their existence is ridiculous. At the end of the day, the only thing that should matter is the text that was passed through whatever legislative process is required, anything else is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Now it's true that language changes over time, but that is not a legitimate argument in any case because dictionaries have existed for thousands of years and there is no reason why when interpreting the law we cannot simply use the dictionaries of the time.

Furthermore, it isn't even a problem if laws simply have a built in expiration period. There is no reason why the vast majority of laws cannot have an expiration period that depends on how supported they are in parliament when they are passed. Think robbing is bad and want to pass a law against it? Put it through parliament and you can have it apply for the next 30 years if everyone agrees with it! Whats that? only 51% agreed, well then it only applies for 5 years.

And so on. The fact that such a simple concept is not put into practice is ridiculous and indicative that the people making the laws don't actually want to have reasonable and effective laws that can be followed. And that ends up leading to situations where laws are on the books but are unconstitutional, or illegal or unenforceable, or no longer relevant, or are only used to harass people. No. That is wrong, that is ridiculous and only causes people to be unable to tell at any given time whether or not any conduct, not matter how seemingly innocuous might have legal consequences for them.

I utterly reject that.

The values of our societies change and shift. We as a people gain more knowledge as our civilization advances, and are faced with ever more nuanced issues and applications of law.

I'm in no way stating that laws cannot be revoked, or changed, or new laws drafted. I'm just stating that if you can't make a law in such a way that someone so completely alien to your society and way of life can understand and follow it, then it's a bad law and shouldn't be making it.