Chesterton's Fence doesn't require that you perform a merely superficial analysis of why things are as they are, and indeed it would be doing the idea a disservice to do so.

As I noted in another reply below, I think it's fine to make the argument that the 2+ parking place rule comes from zoning policies that are ultimately racist, and that if you can show that this is really the sole origin of the rule, you've cleared "the fence" and can start to meangingully propose alternatives.

But such a historically-aware analysis is a far cry from "too much government regulation ... regulatory capture ... wah!"

There is clearly too much government and there is regulatory capture - are you saying these aren't true? Just because some regulation is deemed good doens't mean the majority is.

There is a bias that the present and recent history is how things are and should be and that any changes require superior proof than the initial experiment in passing the legislation.

I understand that you might think there is too much government, but it's far from clear that this is so.

I think the USA could benefit from "more government", but even saying that is woefully ambiguous. What does "less government" or "more government" even mean? Less laws? More government workers? Too much spending?

Regulatory capture is indeed a problem, but it's not unique to the USA and there's no point pretending that it's unsolvable.

Thinking of the issue as "too much" vs "too little" presumes government quality is a one dimensional thing.

Reality is far, far more complex and interesting than that!

>There is clearly too much government

and you're just declaring those based on feelings? or something you saw on fox news?