Maybe, but nowadays we are more inclined to give general guidelines and let people achieve them on their own, rather than try to force or command results. Individual aims weigh more heavily with us that institutional goals. If you want to see another view of public life, take a look at Michael Oakeshott's Rationalism in Politics. Or at Friedrich Hayek.
Given his popularity with the democratic socialists of the 1940s and George Soros today, Popper is bound to have a bad reputation with conservatives. Jeremy Shearmur was a student of Popper's who wrote on Hayek as well. His view views on Hayek and Popper might interest you:
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/shearmur.htm
http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/earlyclassicalliberalism/popper.html
I doubt that people can or should take things as far as the libertarian fringe advocates, but our current desire to put individual freedom ahead of collective goals is laudable and has much to recommend it. It's likely that we delude ourselves by ignoring the degree of planning, regulation, and control that goes into keeping our society running, but when we look at those whose main interest is in planning, controlling, and regulating public life, to the exclusion of other human activities, it's natural that people shun them.