I'm becoming more concerned with what I see rather than being an anarchist.

Most laws incorporate exceptions, from speed limits excepted for the emergency services to killing another excepted for self defence. — unenlightened

I don't see the exception of ambulances as being a failure of the law rather an allowance within the law however self defense is an admission of a failure with the law. That failure is fueled by community moral and ethical standing against how the law was written in the first place.
As far as slavery laws, a number of countries had allowed it. The reasoning being there was a moral and ethical belief dating to prior to the Romans and Greeks. From my limited understanding, even in the US there was the same belief. The change away from this belief is still in flux today with a few countries holding on to the belief and laws.

I think society is divided because people are divided within themselves; it is a matter of psychology rather than law. If society was not divided, there would be no law, merely custom. It is because we are greedy, careless of others, and selfish that we have to restrain ourselves. In that sense it is always unsatisfactory. — unenlightened

It is unfortunate that this is so, not just in the US but to some extent in most countries in the world however I believe psychology is powered by morals and ethics which form the basis of all laws. There was a time when most laws where not written and people did live according to 'custom'. Socially accepted behavior is the norm and no one questions it. Hence my questioning.
Greedy, careless of others, selfish - it would be interesting to look at what has made so many take this road. Certainly I don't think everyone thinks this way. The majority of people I have met haven't held this viewpoint. In fact, most people want nothing more than to live life according to their family morals and ethics and they live within the society of their choosing because they see a fit with their beliefs.

Interesting.
A basic way at looking at law.
I also don't have an issue with tests and exams, however what happens many times, and more frequently in some cases than others, is that the very rules that a person has to show obedience to in order to obtain the certification are soon enough put aside. In some instances the certification is used as justification for the wrong doing.
Also an interesting concept, putting people in prison takes them out of circulation. Is that all that prison is? Is that the fundamental of society? Not looking at rehabilitation or reentry into society's norm, just take them out of circulation for a while - the longer the better?
Again are we being delusional? Are we really satisfied that when a law is enacted there are going to be a percentage of society that will reject the law because it doesn't suit their purpose? That may even bypass other societal laws in order to bypass this law? All laws have a 100% commitment requirement by the very nature that they are defined as laws. By labeling some laws as 'counter-productive' and others 'oppressive' we are stating that those laws are counter to our morals and ethics which then makes such laws unworkable. Society becomes divided.
Of course there are some laws that have been introduced in order to justify retrospectively actions already taken.