I see nothing wrong with "just allowing nudity", there are no rational arguments against it. It's not "already happening some places", so much as it's been going on since forever. Social acceptance has waxed and waned, but those who see the wisdom of going nude have been with us always.

I think it's the opinion of most rational people who aren't in the business of controlling large groups of people for their own personal gain, that everyone should wear whatever the hell they want, wherever and whenever they want to.

We all look the same, when nude. You can't tell the "landed gentry" from the poors. That's the whole problem for the oppressors, they need an easy way to sort us quickly by sight when the thugs with clubs are released (the thugs with clubs having their own uniform). Skin color works beautifully because it doesn't wash off. But, what about all the folks with the same color skin as the oppressors? That's where clothes come in. Also, tattoos, whether by choice, or forced upon us.

The Dress Act 1746, also known as the Disclothing Act, was part of the Act of Proscription (19 Geo. 2. c. 39) which came into force on 1 August 1746 and made it illegal to wear "the Highland Dress" — including the kilt — by men and boys in Scotland... The landed gentry were also exempt, being exempt from the entire Act of Proscription.

How Dressing in Drag Was Labeled a Crime in the 20th Century

Sumptuary laws have been with us for thousands of years. Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures for apparel, food, furniture, or shoes, etc. Historically, they were intended to regulate and reinforce social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures, often depending on a person's social rank.