It's not just the legal system or software which is filled with loopholes (exploits), it's actually everything. Life is like a game of chess, and the more intelligent an agent is, the more options it has to choose between each turn.

However, it isn't a lack of intelligence which has prevented mass-exploitation so far, it's actually a human thing clustering with taste/good faith/morality/cooperation/irrationality

Businessmen and everyone who considers it rational to optimize gains (this is the definition of a rational agent), have little of this.

Amazon pressures employees into working themselves to death because that's what's optimal for their profits. Even if it only lowered their profits by 0.1% to prevent this, they'd not do it. This is the very nature of optimization, which is about extracting as much value from things as possible.

As society is getting more "scientific" (rational, practical, whatever), it's getting less moral, which means the tendency for cooperation decreases. Since the world has come to this, it's ridiculous to think you can fix anything. The only means is power, and the most powerful player is usually not interested in making things better for less powerful players.

Human beings used to, quite intentionally, ignore the best choices available to them. They blinded themselves to them, throwing them into a category called "psychopathic behavior" and pruning the thought paths leading there entirely. This is how Moloch was kept at bay. And if this counter-force was religion, then yes, religious people were irrational. But this Chesterton's Fence saved us from something worse.

Midwits feel so smart when they game the system and use strategies that normal people cannot see, but they're slowly creating a world in which the most psychopathic players have an advantage. And as somebody who has a solid security mindset, and who is above midwit-level intelligence, I want to remind them that there's 1000 ways to destroy them which they have zero defenses against. Harming me is quite easy as well, which is why I can only appeal to the good will of others.

This means that we now live in a world where you cannot become stronger. There's too many dimensions to work with. Imagine you go to the gym for 10 years in a row, only to then get poisoned. Most of you will know about mirror bacteria. But I want to warn that there's likely 1000 similar dangers just waiting to be discovered, in the same way that there's 1000 zero-days in all common software and hardware waiting to be discovered. These attacks exist in different dimensions, and I think it's impossible to protect oneself from them all simultaneously.

The phrase "This is why we can't have nice things" as a response to people abusing something made available to them, describes the mechanism of a problem I think is becoming increasingly common. We won't be able to have nice things anymore, as creating "nice things" is a move which you can only take if the move of the other players is not to immediately exploit the nice thing and ruin it for everyone. In other words, nice things require irrational behavior (for unexploited value being left alone).

"Good things" may still be worth it when the exploitative response is rare, but when the media wants a good thing gone, they exaggerate examples of the exploitative response in order to vaccinate society of the good thing (examples: Nuclear power discouraged by the Chernobyl incident, gun ownership discouraged by school shootings, Encryption discouraged by CSAM). Because people are biased towards reducing negatives over increasing positives, the absolute welfare of society falls as a result. I personally believe that the highest positive is limited by the highest tolerated negative. In either case, a good society requires vulnerabilities which are left unexploited despite players ability to exploit them. You cannot force good behavior because the mechanisms of force and the mechanisms of good behavior conflict. You cannot design your way around it because the theoretically optimal design of anything is neural and thus not biased towards good things. And the arms race between closing loop holes and discovering new ones seem to go nowhere at best, so I'd like a solution which is entirely different.

If we perceived more value in the sight of unextracted value than in extracting it, we'd be alright, but this requires having good taste and valuing more personal/subjective/human things, for the lack of better wording. This is certainly not what companies are about