You make it easy considering you are making my points for me. If you are trying to make a point about hubris by just being more arrogant, what exactly is the argument you are making?
And on that, you haven’t outlined anything that’s worth even discussing. I made the argument that laws are only as meaningful as they’ve are applied. Its likely you don’t even recognize the assumptions of your argument being an extension of legal positivism, theoretically described by legal philosophers like Austin and Hart. But the problem with Austin and Hart? Their philosophy (legal positivism) doesn’t predict the past, the future, or even the present. Legal positivism isn’t how the world works. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”
This is called legal realism for those in the cheap seats, and its an effort to understand the law as its applied: which is to say, to understand the law as it actually works.
Whats on the books is irrelevant. What matters is what happens. It doesn’t matter if there is a law preventing anything if it doesn’t get applied.
Edit response to your edit response: Please, keep showing me that you don’t understand what you are talking while you make my points for me.