Honestly I kinda agree with OP cuz if you're surrounded and if your king moves its captured then why should the opponent not win
Imagine this hypothetical scenario.
I entered a convenience store and stole a small Yakult cultured milk drink. One small bottle only. Because of this, the police department would spend some time trying to detain me.
If they successfully detained me within hours, that would be good (and should be the case). But I evaded them, and finally after six months, they found where I am and surrounded me.
To the readers of the news, they would know that I finally got cornered. However, for such a simple stealing crime, it took six months for them to finally catch me. Readers would likely point out the inefficiencies of the police force.
In chess, stalemate is viewed as "being inefficient" when compared to the alternative of a checkmate. With so many forces attacking the helpless opposing king (and other pieces which cannot move), checkmate should be possible.
That said, not all stalemates are due to plain carelessness. A tiny minority of stalemates require some foresight into the position and it has to involve the creativity of the losing side to attempt to "force" the stalemate to happen.
I agree with OP. If I could change the rules of chess, the very first rule I would change is remove stalemate and allow the king to get captured. And then later on, deal with this en passant thing.
If it's the OP mentioning it, I wouldn't bother agreeing with it.
However, if it's coming from a player of high standing, rated around 2600 in bullet, I might consider this...