Safetyism as it stands is immoral, yet the article's rejection of it is too extreme. I would like to suggest some middle-ground:

There is nothing wrong when a group of people comes together and forms a pact to protect each other - against whatever.

It is morally wrong, though, when a group of people forces its "protection" over others who never asked to belong to their group nor to be protected by it (that would be reminiscent of a Mafia).

States are not some mystical entities: all they are, at the bottom line, are just groups of people, thus their actions are subject to exactly the same moral codes that apply to other people and their groups.

What a state could do to righten its present Safetyism approach, is to question all people whether or not they wish to be protected by it. This means sending out a per-person questionnaire, asking:

"Would you like for the state to attempt to protect you against X? [Yes]/[No]"
"Would you like for the state to attempt to protect you against Y? [Yes]/[No]"
...

So with each "Yes" tick, there come benefits and there also come obligations. For example, if one ticks "Yes" for "Would you like for the state to attempt to protect you against road accidents?" then one of their obligations could be to wear a seat-belt.

Another example: if one opted to be protected against fires or floods, then they also accept the obligation to obey evacuation orders.

To clarify, the state could still make reasonable laws for the sole purpose of protecting those who want its protection, even when they also apply to others - speed limits for example, unless none of the users of that particular road ticked "Yes" to opt for the state's protection against road accidents.

I could expand on details, but I rather stop here and keep this brief so the principle is understood without being too tedious to read.

I read this article elsewhere. It made sense.

Well put article ! Too bad our highly educated in authority are too silly to get the gist of being people !