I want to like his theory complex, but for the life of me I can't see the objective spirit as anything than cope. Hegel doesn't want Kant's untouchable noumena and for it makes up a whole framework, to make them knowable (at least by something, not even individuals).
I inquiries, but I can not conclude if we gain anything, explain anything that actually needs explaining, by the objective spirit.
Even if we'd conceded (I have no issue with it, but it's also up to debate) that morals and laws are more than practically based, evolution-based and circumstantial, i.e. even if those things have a true and right way about what they should be, then this still doesn't mean we need to bundle them up into a "spirit". Who said we need to philosophically explain institutions, also?
I wish it wasn't so cope'y, that there's be more to it, but it's as far as I can see a pointless conception of something that's there anyway.