Although it is usually wrong to argue by definition, in this case "goes against the law" means it is a crime by definition. Just because you don't like the law doesn't it make it less of a law.
I think a lot of your examples are a little bit misguided, a case of not understanding the reasoning behind laws. Sometimes, things are illegible because we lack the correct perspective, not because they're fundamentally wrong.
For example, at least in some parts of the United States (Texas is the one I'm familiar with, but others might exist), it is legal for minors to consume alcohol, even in restaurants, with parental supervision (https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?...).
The reason children can drive cars relatively young in the United States has several factors, but one of the big ones is the distance between places. I had a roommate who started driving to school when he was 14 or 15 because it was the only way for him to efficiently get to his school, which was still a 25 minute drive. There was some sort of special licensing in Iowa for children that young to drive to and from school unsupervised, because it wasn't efficient to try to bus everyone in. Now, you might still think this is a bad law, but it's not like they just made up a driving age for fun. The social, economic, and political reality of certain areas of the United States makes driving far more valuable than in many other places in the world, simply because practical transportation alternatives do not exist.
Doesn't TPP extend legal protection for intellectual property? Much of Googles value stems from its IP. It makes sense they want to protect one of their most valuable assets.
The Minnesota Starvation Experiment was such a poorly designed diet that it's not really relevant to the modern discussion of prevent obesity among a relatively prosperous population. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen...), the diet was based on "foods that were expected to typify the diets of people in Europe during the latter stages of the war: potatoes, rutabagas, turnips, bread and macaroni." In other words, almost entirely carbs, with practically no fat or protein. Almost every reasonable diet I know of (coming from the modern fitness community at least) focuses first on maintaining adequate protein intake as the top priority, usually followed by at least a reasonable amount of fat. While it may have been useful to understanding starvation in a population with food scarcity, it just doesn't apply when looking at obesity in modern America.
I think a lot of your examples are a little bit misguided, a case of not understanding the reasoning behind laws. Sometimes, things are illegible because we lack the correct perspective, not because they're fundamentally wrong.
For example, at least in some parts of the United States (Texas is the one I'm familiar with, but others might exist), it is legal for minors to consume alcohol, even in restaurants, with parental supervision (https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?...).
The reason children can drive cars relatively young in the United States has several factors, but one of the big ones is the distance between places. I had a roommate who started driving to school when he was 14 or 15 because it was the only way for him to efficiently get to his school, which was still a 25 minute drive. There was some sort of special licensing in Iowa for children that young to drive to and from school unsupervised, because it wasn't efficient to try to bus everyone in. Now, you might still think this is a bad law, but it's not like they just made up a driving age for fun. The social, economic, and political reality of certain areas of the United States makes driving far more valuable than in many other places in the world, simply because practical transportation alternatives do not exist.