Debating the ‘nanny state’

Anyone who believes that “big nanny-ism” is the way this country ought to be governed is delusional at best, especially one who believes that “coercion” and “intrusion” are legitimate means in its behalf. I refer to Sarah Conly ’75 and her advocacy of “coercive paternalism” (Alumni Scene, May 15).

The Founding Fathers of this country acknowledged human weakness: They knew in their bones that men and governments were not to be naively trusted. They had learned from history and experience that centralized bureaucracies were riddled with corruption and, as often as not, ended in slaughter.

Those who have lived under the “coercive” state reject it summarily. As Albert Camus, who lived under Nazi and Communist regimes, said: “None of the ills that totalitarianism claims to cure is worse than totalitarianism itself.”