I was enjoying Radley’s fine article in Forbes, when towards the end, I come across this:
Nanny statists are probably well intentioned, yet they’re obsessed with the number of lives this bill or that regulation might save. But a shorter life well lived is far preferable to a long, bland life lived solely to keep from dying. Of course, that’s just this writer’s opinion.
Now, I’ve been accused of being a softy with regard to some of my disagreements and such charges are deserved. But my conciliatory demeanor is reserved for those I deem to be individualists, at least to an acceptable level.
There is not a single person in elected office anywhere in the world that meets the minimum standard of the essential defining attributes of individualism, much less my standards (which are substantially higher).
There’s no such thing as a "well-intentioned" statist, nanny or otherwise. Good intentions, first and foremost, are premised on the good; and the ends don’t justify the means. When evil is advanced to obtain "good" results, it’s evil. Period. End of story. There are no "good intentions" anywhere around.
So let’s just lay off the conciliatory posture with regard to the state and its battalions of force, shall we?