Not only did the end of the article fall flat for me as well, I would go one step further to say the author possibly contradicted himself. In section X he talks

Not only did the end of the article fall flat for me as well, I would go one step further to say the author possibly contradicted himself. In section X he talks about the Crits having heightened awareness toward the indeterminacy of law, but still impose their values on everyone else, like everyone else. It is true that the Crits want to impose "democratic" or socialistic values on everyone through the mechanism of the law. But this does not distinguish them from anyone else. Isn't this similar to what he's doing? Imposing his "anarchistic" values on everyone?