We've developed, over the centuries, a system of law (usually called the Common Law system) in which the general presumption is that as long as there is no law specifically against the activity you undertake, it is legal. This is in contrast to the so called Roman Law (sometimes called Continental or Napoleonic) ideal that you may only do those things which are specifically sanctioned by a positive law allowing you to do so.
We could deal with this by becoming a nation of scoff-laws which is how many of our European partners deal with this conundrum, or we could return to the Common Law ideal: the law is there solely to stop us from infringing upon the rights of others and to act as an arbitration system when such infringements are encountered.
The latter is the liberal, progessive and radical option, with the added bonus that if adopted we'd be able to fire many bureaucrats currently engaged in such futile rule-making. That the Nanny Staters, those who do not in fact know the meanings of the words liberal, radical or progressive, are in power and have been for some time is why such a simple solution will not, of course, be adopted.