Maybe this is just bait, but this is already how it works. I'll go over US law, but other countries likely have similar processes.

Legislation needs to have justification for restricting people, or it gets overturned when challenged. This is because it would fail the strict scrutiny test, making it unconstitutional. It needs to be "narrowly tailored" to a "legitimate government interest" to pass. In other words, it needs to be focussed on addressing a problem the government acknowledges some responsibility to solve, and do so in a way that doesn't cause undue restrictions beyond that goal.

Creating a law isn't an easy process, so they are made with purpose. That doesn't mean every law is a good law, but that's why we have these processes for reform after all. Sometimes you have old nonesense laws remain, but that is typically because they are unenforced or too detached from modern life for anyone to care to remove them.

Nah it's not exactly unreasonable to say that all objects and systems can be observed and judged, this isn't libertarian claptrap, it's just a fundamental basis of reality, everybody has a plan including the ones keeping an eye on our very government systems. Think of it this way, almost every system has an achilles heel and can fall apart so having people observe and act quickly to get things "back on track" or simply suggest a potential alternative path away from a point of failure actually means more than simply rejecting critique on the basis of maintaining an imaginary status quo