The Nanny State Didn't Show Up, You Hired It [LINK]

After skimming through the linked article I am quite confused by its author's bizarre writing style. And almost complete lack of order among its many conclusions and assumptions (hard to tell them apart). Isn't there a clear way to state the same thing without forcing the reader to wade through silly dialogues and pointless digressions?

I followed the link, and wow that was a bad article. After sampling some of the structureless, self-indulgent writing, I realized I've actually read a few posts from him before. My personal favorite is this, where he takes a break from rambling about some internet celebrity to explain that we are all sheeple for not turning widescreen monitors sideways.

But what makes The Last Psychiatrist really awful is that he pretends to be wise. One very easy way to establish oneself as Wise and Profound is to baldly make some seemingly self-contradictory or obviously false statement. It's important not to actually argue for this claim, simply make it, and sneer at anyone who disagrees. A great example:

What you don't understand consciously is that your judgment of risk is based on the fact that you believe in God, and this is even more true if you think you don't believe in God. I can sense your resistance to this idea because you think you don't believe in God, but sadly for your immortal soul, you do.

Heh, you think you don't believe in god? Think again, sheeple! The Last Psychiatrist doesn't need evidence, he just makes reality up as he goes.

I'm having trouble parsing this:

It definitely articulates some of the frustrations I've had with people breaking out some people who break out in a rash of Libertarianism over one (on the surface) silly law being passed and reported on and then not

Alone points out that humans create institutions to make their environment safer, and then offload their own responsibilities onto these institutions. He accuses us all of shirking our Heroic Responsibility. I’m not sure this is fair. An individual human can only do so much. I’ve avoided vulnerability to a somewhat silly degree in the past (avoiding caring for others or owning much more than I can carry at a dead run… caring for too much makes you vulnerable). Turns out too much independence can be far more harmful than not enough, because individual humans are weak and small, and we can do things of Power only by combining our efforts. To do something noteworthy, we much focus on our specialty and trust others to do focus on theirs. To create a strong meta-individual, we cannot all be completely responsible for everything – we need some specialists in responsibility as well. Not every cell in the human body can fight off hostile invaders, most of them have other vital tasks.

Thanks for reminding me that I should be following this guy.

frustrations I've had with people breaking out some people who break out

Looks like a typo.

Edit: when I am already at this, another typo:

absurdity hueristic

This article is very much in the same vein as the discussion about Heroic Responsibility So good!

Thanks for this, I haven't read Last Psychiatrist in a while, it was nice to be reminded of it again.