It might be the case that, in general, people can never consider the downsides without leaving the rules in place forever. Maybe they do need to be mindlessly trashed every once in awhile, and maybe the price paid for those downsides is worth it on a very long time scale where the alternative would be for rules to only ever accrete but never shake loose. And they have to sometimes unless you believe that all regulations ever, no matter how poorly formulated are perfect.
What an unnecessarily narrow view. There are options beyond "rules are permanent forever" and "our only choice is to remove all of the rules".
But by all means, tear down all these fences without understanding why they exist. They can just be rebuilt after all, and it's not like wolves will eat all of us and our livestock in the meantime.
==It might be the case that, in general, people can never consider the downsides without leaving the rules in place forever. ==
This assumes that the rules created themselves out of thin air and we never lived without them. In most cases, existing rules/regulations were created in response to events that proved their necessity.
That regulations were created in response to events that should have been regulated does not imply that the resulting legislation was an appropriate way to solve the problem. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act
