Hmmm. I don't regret not doing law, whatever online tests say. The consensus seems to be there are some parts I'd find very interesting, the jurisprudence, the constructing arguments and playing nomic with the law, but most of it I'd hate.
But every so often I come across something and go 'hmmm', I should have covered that in a lecture somewhere. Witness the response to my factual and moral truths musings.
Today, I ended up reading about blackmail[1]. Why is it illegal? Obviously if you're threatening an illegal act it should be, but showing pictures of a neighbour leaving a lover's house of to their spouse is legal, and receiving gifts from them is legal, but both together aren't. Though *them* proposing to pay *you* not to still is.
It's illegal because lots of bad things would happen if it isn't. It would encourage lots of snooping, stealing to pay blackmailers, etc.
But apparently there is no good test for *what* threats constitute blackmail. Publishing information? Too restrictive. Any threat? Too broad: that would cover hard bargaining.
Can anyone propose a better?
There are other common examples of laws where the harm is hard to define, that "libertarians" would like to abolish, and are problematic in inexactitude, but are probably necessary. Prostitution. Ticket scalping. Telling lies on TV. (OK, that isn't, but shouldn't it be?)
[1] Or extortion. Used here in the sense of "threatening to X unless you do Y" where X may or may not be legal, and may or may not be an inaction, and Y may or may not be giving money.