> when dealing with complex sociological questions there are always negative externalities and the case can always be made that there are additional hidden exte

> when dealing with complex sociological questions there are always negative externalities and the case can always be made that there are additional hidden externalities we don't fully understand yet. And therefore the correct solution to all these sociological problems according to Hazlitt is to do nothing. How can he propose to do something about what's not understood? Both action or inaction have consequences and those consequences once understood would motivate a new action or inaction. I'm not criticizing, I ask this because I didn't understand well the argument in its abstract form.