"Society has the right to change the rules on you. The system belongs to all of us." is something the Bolshevik might have said to the Kulak as the latter was walking up the gallows.

That is not a very good argument, akin to " 'Salads are healthy' is something Hitler would say". And? Since when someone despicable uttering something invalidates what was said by contamination, taken so out of context?

My point is that arguing that "society has the right to change the rules" is not an argument that any particular rule change is a good idea. Many rule changes have been both brutal and catastrophic.

Sounds very close to ex post facto

> Sounds very close to ex post facto

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. If a democracy can't repeal a law that's proven to be an error, you'll have quote a dysfunctional system.

Ex post facto (in the Constitution, at least) refers specifically passing a law making an action illegal and punishable after the fact. Actions can only be illegal according to the law in force at the time they were taken.

Yes. You are talking about taking people's property away with legal force because you don't like how they used it after they've agreed to buy it under different conditions.