Particularly in regards to laws that provide benefits to a group of people, it's basically political suicide for somebody to run on the platform of removing that benefit.
My girlfriend used to work in affordable housing, and she would tell me about how the reference book of codes and laws they had to keep in line with had increased by orders of magnitude in size as compared to those from a few decades prior. A politician adds access to affordable housing for those making less than 45k, except for those who were part of the 1985 initiative benefiting LGBTQ out of state college graduates, in which case their children can continue to benefit from access to the affordable housing for 7 years after the death of their parents at a more forgiving 75k minimum salary, after which a 15 year period lowers it to 60k, given that they continue to work within 50 miles of the initial residence of their parent beneficiaries. I'm obviously making this specific example up, but it's not too far off from reality.
Legislation and regulation are horribly slow to get passed anyway, a rule like that would add an order of magnitude more overhead. Now the question wouldn't be "how may laws apply to the thing I want to do" but "how many laws will pop out of existence over the duration of the thing I want to do, which ones benefit me and which hurt me, how much will I have to spend on lawyers and lobbyists to maintain a vaguely stable environment, and who will be spending to oppose this?"
"Oh, you want to renew the "Don't put lead in milk" law? Yeah, you're gonna have to set aside $50m for this project I think is super important.."
And if the problem is the police singling out some people like you said, then in my opinion there are other, more straight forward ways to tackle it. There are too many cases where a crime should be prosecuted even if it's difficult to do so.
(As an example, I consider rape a difficult crime to deal with, but I wouldn't understand not prosecuting it because of that)
Murder would be legal in Detroit, or at least, it would have been for more than one year.
If you believe reforms should not be made, publish those arguments to the best of your abilities.
Never assume that your reasoning will be obvious to even the next person in your position, let alone the next generation.
Trump has a 5:1 ratio on regulations cut vs passed: https://cei.org/blog/trump-maintains-one-five-out-pace-rules...
tl;dr no point in paying attention to existing laws.
While it nearly assures the death of the project, it's so enticing due to its simplicity.
Sad, downvoted? Ok - what a way to inspire conversation. Thanks HN. Stay bright.
(Not sure I'm really a libertarian either, but almost certainly a know-it-all)