Put another way: Rust isn't aiming to be top of the pack in terms of enforcing a certain programming style, where as it is aiming to be top of the pack in terms of safe systems programming. (It might happen to be the best language for the former, but that is a consequence of the latter, not the other way around.)
I don't think that Rust is trying to test out a programming paradigm or whatever, I'm saying that these "seemingly arbitrary rules" get us a lot of things, by proxy of a certain paradigm, and reducing it to "data race freedom" (when it's so much more) is something we should avoid.
(My comment seems to focus on the discipline, I was just using it as a proxy for all of the things it gets us)
Furthermore, I still think the best phrasing of the rules is for that guarantee: if a rule is removed one can usually construct fairly simple programs that have data races/memory unsafety. Of course, it is definitely true that the arbitrary rules have other benefits, but if there was a simpler scheme that gave the core memory safety without the other things, I think Rust would've adopted it.
IMO this is just a part of it (and I think you agree, based on previous conversations). The actual thing is that the rules enforce a discipline about data, similar to the discipline in functional languages (except here it's allowing sharing XOR mutation instead of forbidding mutation entirely). This discipline gets us many things -- memory safety, safety from iterator invalidation-y things (there's a whole class of memory safety bugs that happen when you modify the exterior of a things whilst holding a pointer to the interior -- from iterator invalidation to invalidating pointers to a vector after truncation to invalidating enums), and clarity in code. Whilst the chronology of it's design may not be such, I personally look at data race freedom as something we got for free from this discipline, instead of the core focus of it.