[natalyarostova]

I think the argument is contrived because loop holes for murder don't exist for a reason, which is that the electoral connection -> legislative process essentially leaves zero room for there to be such a loophole. In fact, concepts such as the intended meaning of the law mean that even if you hacked some edge case in the written law, you'd still go to jail.

Conversely, tax law operates under a general regime where the expected and encouraged behavior of firms is to do their best to avoid paying taxes. In fact, maximizing share-holder value is even legally required (if blatantly ignored the firm is open to lawsuit).

More generally, analogy is an attempt to model one unknown phenomena, by claiming it is actually just a subset in the core abstract moral dimensions as another obvious and solved phenomena. While making comparisons isn't always bad, In practice it frequently seems to obfuscate or wash away really critical idiosyncratic differences (e.g. what I alluded to above) and as a result over-simplifies often complex topics.

The original point was really just 'legality is not the same thing as morality,' which is fine, I think most people agree with that. The question is how and does that concept apply in this given case, and I think to address that question properly requires engaging with the specific details.

[druddha]

> I think the argument is contrived because loop holes for murder don't exist for a reason, which is that the electoral connection -> legislative process essentially leaves zero room for there to be such a loophole.

Loopholes do exist for murder: for instance, self defense. The Trayvon Martin case is an example of this. The loophole exists for valid reasons, but it's often taken advantage of to circumvent the spirit of the law.

> In fact, concepts such as the intended meaning of the law mean that even if you hacked some edge case in the written law, you'd still go to jail.

Can you provide evidence that this applies only to murder and not to tax evasion?

> Conversely, tax law operates under a general regime where the expected and encouraged behavior of firms is to do their best to avoid paying taxes.

I'll agree it's expected, but I think you'd have a hard time finding a politician or member of the working class who would say firms are encouraged to avoid paying taxes.

I agree that it's not a perfect analogy, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it entirely.