Several fans of game consoles and Apple consumer electronics would claim that some individual hardware owners can't be trusted not to disable security to see dancing animals, and taking control away from them is in their own good.
I'm sure you would even agree that this is true for some individual hardware owners, perhaps even most of them.
But the solution is not to take it away from them per se, but rather to easily enable them to delegate it to a 3rd party they trust.
The problem with, say, Apple, is that it asserts it is that trusted 3rd party and gives users no reasonable way to take control back from Apple and either exercise their own security or delegate to a different 3rd party -they- do trust.
Contrast that with Antivirus software for example. We select it, install it, and put some faith in its ability to identify malware while trusting it not to exceed that mandate. If it sees an infected file come in it quarantines it. The 'unsophisticated user' typically accepts the antivirus companies assessment of the file and moves on. Few will challenge the antivirus software and seek to disable it and restore the file from quarantine.
However, if the antivirus software were to start blocking things it really has no business blocking and which doesn't represent what the customers want from it they are free to uninstall it and switch to something else.
I can't recall what my brother was using, but one day a few months ago it up and blocked him from going to the pirate bay. He uninstalled it and uses something else now. This is pretty much ideal... we have an established a norm that one should have antivirus, but it is ultimately up to us, and we can change antivirus providers at will.
The reason viruses are such a problem is that blacklisting simply can't work, and "detecting malicious activity" is HARD. A white listing approach would in some environments be a lot more effective. And I've seen deployed in practice with excellent results in corporate environments.