WTF Lawyers

Fair enough, and we want to avoid arbitrariness, but couldn't we introduce something to avoid loopholes which says effectively "Does the drafting or implementation of the law make clear its intent to a competent, impartial person"?

So let's take as an example the parking loophole which allowed people to get off fines on the basis that the yellow lines weren't terminated in a T-shape. Does the fact that the line isn't terminated in a "T" indicate to a competent, impartial person that it is not intended to restrict parking? Of course not, therefore the loophole should not be available.

Of course this just transfers the arbitrariness problem to the definitions of "competent" and "impartial", but it might solve some problems.

Your example, however, confers an absolute right on government to do what they want, as opposed to a constrained right to do what they want.

After all, who is the government to tell me when and where I can park?