It's easy to find what arguments people gave for instituting a rule.
That is often different from the real reason it was enacted or is kept around.
There is always a nice sounding argument for even the most blatantly unfair rule. Normally, due to Motivated Reasoning, the people benefitting from them even honestly believes the arguments!
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 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 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.
Reality is far, far more complex and interesting than that!
and you're just declaring those based on feelings? or something you saw on fox news?