The problem is that smsm42 started his comment with a completely indefensible absolutist statement: "No, we do not control the rules."
This is obviously wrong, because we (as society) control all the rules that are written into law.
But the post smsm42 originally replied to didn't wrong "the rules that are written into law", but "the rules of the system in which all this stuff happens". Which (according to smsm42) includes other rules that are not written into law (those underlying human nature) and which we don't control.
This whole back and forth could have been avoided if smsm42 had instead written: "Yes, we can change the law, though we need to be aware of the limitations of such changes because there are some rules, underlying human nature, that we cannot change."
It's a matter of perspective, but I don't think that paints the image that smsm42 wanted to portray. I feel it's more "Hayek-ian" than that.
I don't think that paints the image that smsm42 wanted to portray.
That's quite possible because of course I was going from my impression and trying to read between the lines.
That was kind of the point of my comment: If he'd been less absolutist in his statement, and acknowledged that surrealize had a point, we might have found out what his position actually was. Now we may never know...
This is obviously wrong, because we (as society) control all the rules that are written into law.
But the post smsm42 originally replied to didn't wrong "the rules that are written into law", but "the rules of the system in which all this stuff happens". Which (according to smsm42) includes other rules that are not written into law (those underlying human nature) and which we don't control.
This whole back and forth could have been avoided if smsm42 had instead written: "Yes, we can change the law, though we need to be aware of the limitations of such changes because there are some rules, underlying human nature, that we cannot change."
It's a matter of perspective, but I don't think that paints the image that smsm42 wanted to portray. I feel it's more "Hayek-ian" than that.