The decent counterargument is that your proposed system of law isn't one of law at all. It's arbitrary and capricious. It violates all recognized standards of due process.

Under your system, there is no way of knowing whether what you are doing is legal or not.

For example, how would you feel if tomorrow you were hauled to jail for incitement toward an ex post facto law? Ex post facto laws are widely recognized as being morally reprehensible. Surely you should have been on notice that it's illegal to push for one, right?

Your opening "argument" asks us to throw out literally centuries of jurisprudence. Little surprise that you find my response lacking.