Your motivation may be ideological but it is not in anyway practical.
If you look worldwide, places with minimal levels of regulation and enforcent tend to be more impoverished and almost no countries with a functioning government have the level of regulation that you advocate. The evidence strongly suggest that regulation tends to increase economic efficiency (at least up to a point).
Perhaps you can redirect your ideological distaste to find ways to help systematically determine which regulations are effective/necessary and expediently remove those that are harmful rather than advocating for a state of affairs that ignores reality.
Hong Kong and Singapore certainly have zoning and land use regulation. They have consumer safety regulations. They have much more strict drug law penalties. Thereay be areas where they have less regulation but they are hardly the poster children for "minimal regulation" countries.
I am not at all saying that our level of regulation is perfect. There are lots of bad regulations that exist to protect industry profits or simply remove citizen choice out of fear.
Those poorer nations with less regulations don't enforce what they have. See, for instance, the post about massive sand theft in India; rampant corruption enables anyone to bypass the law amd cause harm to others. Passing more regulations won't fix that; said nations have tried that and failed.
If you look worldwide, places with minimal levels of regulation and enforcent tend to be more impoverished and almost no countries with a functioning government have the level of regulation that you advocate. The evidence strongly suggest that regulation tends to increase economic efficiency (at least up to a point).
Perhaps you can redirect your ideological distaste to find ways to help systematically determine which regulations are effective/necessary and expediently remove those that are harmful rather than advocating for a state of affairs that ignores reality.