that is equivalent to saying that the user community is just plain stupid
I think that's a naive perspective. Consider, Peter_R was making news some time back circulating an academic style paper arguing that a fee market exists absent any blocksize limit. But his analysis depends deeply on there being continued inflation, and does not work without it. If we drive the system into a state where the choice is to take a _bit_ of inflation or else suffer a debilitating loss of security the answer will be obvious, and it doesn't require anyone being stupid. Avoiding that kind of trap requires constant vigilance and foresight to avoid creating that trap in the first place.
Peter_R did however make explicit that premise (of disregarding the actual inflation curve)
in his paper and said that it is a problem to be solved.. but you have a point, extending the subsidies
might be tempting in certain scenarios that we wouldn't want to be locked in.
The "rules" as incorporated to the client software by developers are not the whole picture though, as I see
it there is a balance (or conflict) of power between those who implement the rules (devs), those who play by the
rules (miners) and those that decide whether the rules are worth of anything (investors). They are interdependent,
each having its unique share of powers and ideally we would have to rely on each one checking
each other. So if one group goes nuts, the other two could rectify that situation as it is in their best interest.
I guess that's what I meant by saying that the community isn't stupid...