> "Western society has chosen for itself the organization best suited to its purposes and one I might call legalistic. The limits of human rights and rightness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting, and manipulating law (though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert). Every conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the ultimate solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint or a renunciation of these rights, call for sacrifice and selfless risk: This would simply sound absurd. Voluntary self-restraint is almost unheard of: Everybody strives toward further expansion to the extreme limit of the legal frames"

I would emphasize that last sentence. I didnt even say that Solzhenitsyn advocates for my view I said he hints at these issues in this essay.

I don't know how you can possibly interpret that as a call to remove law as unfixable.

That just says "neckbeards constantly test limits, Westerners are lawsuit happy because it lets them emotionally avoid compromise, and sometimes people should choose not to take everything to court when they could just be nice."

I have the strong impression that you have never read this book and are trying to argue from a search engine

Large parts of this book rail against what you're saying as villainy, and that it is oppressors who argue for the removal of the law in the faked hope of finding something better

This is not a book this is a speech (I dont even think this is excerpt from a book so I am not sure where this book idea is coming from) And yes he even in the next paragraph says that a lawless society is horrible. "I have spent all my life under a Communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed."

I dont think he nor I think of it as "neckbeards constantly testing limits" but as the whole of society; specifically the area that matters here is corporations.

I am not into Crypto blah blah solutions. I am simply arguing that yet another random specific law doesnt seem to fix the issue.

Using legal mechanisms to solve these kind of issues is ineffective, inefficient, and inegalitarian.

> And yes he even in the next paragraph says that a lawless society is horrible.

which is weird because he's being held up as support of removing the law in favor of (handwavey nothing)

.

> Using legal mechanisms to solve these kind of issues is ineffective, inefficient, and inegalitarian.

No evidence supports these claims and no replacement is offered.

Criticism without evidence or replacement is facile.

>which is weird because he's being held up as support of removing the law in favor of

I never made this claim.

The evidence is the subject of the original post itself. This is part of a thread. Click on parent...

What a disappointing conversation.

Indeed, you didn't make that claim. Fascinating to see the same user you replied to do the same thing in your subthread as he did in mine earlier on in the day. I also see you are no less disappointed with your conversation with said user than I was with mine. How very coincidental...

You meet all types on the internet :)

That seems like an inappropriate thing to say.

Good luck to you.