Ok. Agreed. So since when does society not get to make rules to protect itself from exploitation of the commons?

Who said they didn't? How did you so completely miss the point of my post?

To repeat myself, the glaring hole in the original article was the complete lack of any discussion about whether the legal changes to social policy he was advocating would be, on the whole, good or bad for society. He just assumed that if some people wanted to do these things, they should be allowed to do so.