This is like attempting to counter a proposed rule/guideline of program design by saying, "You should always use the best tool for the job." While technically true, it doesn't say anything about what makes a tool suitable for a job. Similarly here, maybe there are common patterns/rules followed by libraries that "do their job well and don't get in the way of using other tools." But dismissing any proposed rule just cuts off the conversation without giving a reason. The details really do matter.

I think what bothers me most about this way of thinking (which seems common here and elsewhere in the industry) is that it provides a veneer of credibility to bad developers who don't want to think about design and would prefer to just wing it.