By the way, I've noticed a trend in this thread and you are guilty of it as well - where you argue against removing "meaningless restrictions" by bringing up what happens when "all restrictions, both meaningful and meaningless" are removed. I guess I just find it odd to see so many people arguing against a position that was never taken by me or anyone else in this thread.
Non, you are guilty of misrepresentation or misunderstanding.
The point is, you are starting from an invalid assumption*: meaningless restrictions
exist.
Just because you can't see/understand the meaning doesn't make it meaning
less.
Just because it's not relevant to the way play at your table does not mean it's irrelevant to everyone.
And thus, it follows: any restriction could be labelled "meaningless" and therefore any restriction could be removed.
*NB, this appears to stem from another a priori invalid assumption: the only reason for restrictions is to limit powergaming and enforce class balance.