Blaming complex rules-is it shooting the messenger?

Accounting rules(IFRS, GAAP) and legal rules(laws, regulations) are often blamed for their rigidity, antique nature, 'obstructive' nature, illogical etc. But since we mostly listen to the affected party('business')'s view point, I thought it is time to present the other view point also in this post

1. Rules aim to govern reality: Governments do not wake up and decide to adopt rules for fun. They do so to address a malaise/issue in society. For instance, laws are mainly to resolve disputes and accounting rules aim to prevent window dressing. Rules are often 'locking the stable after the horse has bolter' type of response. For example, the famed US SOX Act was passed after scams like Enron, Tyco broke out. It takes time to make changes and by then things do get obsolete
2. If unregulated, capitalists go haywire:-When we design the perfect economic system and incentive systems to correct market failures, then we do not need so many 'rules'. But till this Utopian vision emerges, we need rules to protect(or atleast try to protect) society from business
3. It merely reflects reality:- For instance, accounting of financial instruments is blamed for the crisis(!) but this could well be due to the complexity of the underlying instruments themselves

Points (1) & (3) make the case that before joining in a critique of any rule, we should try looking at the core issue beyond emotional appeals.