I completely understand your objection to that phrase in a lot of adult situations. (Safety fence after safety fence, stopping people from hurting themselves with technical products, not letting you hack stuff). I get that completely. Lowest Common Denominator design sucks.
What I was asking was whether you apply that thought accross the board.. My mind particularly went to a Parent>Child relationship. Learning by experience (ie - getting burnt) is a great thing, but sometimes you can/should learn from others experience. Sometimes someone older/more experienced/with more wisdom -- can stop you doing something for your own good.
Perhaps seat-belt laws may be a good example?
Yeah, that is a totally different situation and I only have knowledge of one-side (child's POV) so far. My thought on the topic at the moment is that parents should definitely safe-guard children from life threatening and other irreversibly catastrophic situations. Other situations will mostly be a judgment call, erring on the side of freedom, rather than caution.
As Paul Buchheit said: advice = limited life experiences + over generalization
On seat belt law : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
BTW, I live in Washington state, which smothers you with its motherly laws.
When I have kids, one of my aims as a parent will be to try and err on the side of freedom. (Although I can see that will be a hard choice to make at points). Also - this was a good link I picked up off here/reddit recently: http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/