Not a nanny. The state is an oppressor once it becomes big enough
I agree entirely, but the masses genuinely seem to believe that Nanny State not only can but will protect them from harm.
I remember riding the trains into central London in the days following a terrorist attack on the trains in Spain, where day after day after day we were treated to the same announcement that "following terror attacks in Spain the train company was doing everything it could to keep us safe". It was pretty clear that "doing everything they could do" was pretty much synonymous with "doing nothing" simply because there is no viable way of securing a mass transit system short of introducing security controls so intrusive the system would effectively be shut down. Can you imagine airport style security screening before being allowed to get on a system like the London Underground or the New York Subway?
But what usually happens is every time something nasty happens the masses start screaming for Nanny State to protect them from it, willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for the illusion of security, and then wonder what happened when it all goes wrong. And, of course, along the way anyone who objects to ever-more intrusive surveillance is accused of having something to hide, because that's the only reason the masses can think of that people wouldn't be willing to let Nanny State watch them in the name of increased safety for all.
Trying to flip the argument around into "what am I accused of doing, that requires my every move to be watched?" kind of question sometimes works, but often seems to get howled down in another deluge of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". It reminds me of the "four legs good, two legs bad" of Animal Farm.
