Here’s a good essay you might benefit from reading:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004328.html
Pay special attention to the last three paragraphs. The only thing I would add to it is that Mr. Auster’s optimism regarding Britain and America would seem to have faded. The essay was written in 2001 and both nations have deteriorated a lot since then (see Auster’s more recent writings on the death of England).
"Why not?" is a great place to start when deciding if legislation is necessary. I can practice and participate in transcendence whether or not someone else does. Not everyone experiences the same degree of transcendence and surely no two people have the same values that provide the basis for what is transcending. Anytime I feel that I know what other people's values are or should be, I am heading down that slippery slope of paternalism.
Why not allow people to burn the flag?
Why not? if they pay for the flag and wish to make their idiotic statement, I would much rather let them do so rather than prohibit them from doing so. By the way, the proper disposal for our flag is through burning, for what it is worth.
Why not permit marriage between two persons of the same sex?
Because social security survivor benefits are attached if legally recognized. If marriage between two people of the same sex is allowed, it will be a matter of time before terminally ill and widowed parents start marrying their children to keep the benefits rolling. Why discriminate if marriage is allowed to be redefined? And there really is no reason not to redefine marriage, if so desired, except that federal entitlements are riding on the legality of such bullsh!t maneuvers.
Why not allow a 15-year-old boy to come to school dressed as a girl?
Indeed, why not in a government run school that cannot practice discrimination [not a bad word] and police itself to establish good decorum. Why not support a voucher program?
Why not have female priests?
Why not, if the church so chooses...it is their business and the business of the church's members.
Why not have female soldiers?
Why not? The Navy has females and so does the Air Force. I personally served in the same units with female Marines during my last four years of my 10-year active duty stint in the Corps. Many of these Marines were good-to-go.
Why not encourage children to treat their teachers and parents as their equals?
They're not equals. A child does not have the capacity to act and make decisions as an adult would and therefore, until they reach a certain age where they've matured, these classifications are not equal. However, if a parent or teacher wants break this convention in some unique circumstances then "why not?"
Why not import totally incompatible cultures into our society?
Not sure if I could answer this question unless I knew the specifics.
Why not surrender our national independence to a global government?
Where is that happening. I'll go one better. Why not actively promote the enlarging of the United States by admitting nations that have dissolved their sovereignty through the provisions in article IV sections 3 & 4 of the U.S. Constitution. It would be cheaper than foreign aid and we'd surely replace the significance of institutions like the United Nations.
...................................................
And here we come to the nub of the problem: In a society that has lost the experience of transcendence, in a society that sees only the material or individualistic side of things, there is no answer to these questions.
An admission that the "what if?" question does not always apply universally and therefore should not be up for consideration legislatively; that is, if you value freedom.
Without an allegiance to its own transcendent essence and the ability to articulate it, no institution—and no nation—can survive the Secular-Democratic critique. Indeed, the members of such a society will fail even to recognize that a threat exists, since they no longer have any consciousness of the thing that is threatened.
The sky would fall if we practiced live-and-let-live with a minimal government? Freedom is threatening?! Who would have thunk it?
...................................................
At the same time, since people cannot actually live together without institutions, the breakdown of institutions based on shared adherence to a higher truth must lead to new institutions based, not on any ideal, but on the increasingly naked assertion of will—whether it be the will of “the people,” or the will of some oppressed minority, or the will of some managerial or ideological elite who seek to redesign the society from top to bottom.
Man, this guy cannot see past the need for government. Whether he knows it or not, he is one of government's enablers. A true statist is perpetually worried that the state will fall into the 'wrong hands'. In other words, those who love government and seek its intrusions into at least some matters will fear what government will do once the state falls into the 'hands of someone else'. A good libertarian, however, wants none of it and gets frustrated with the statists.
For these reasons, whenever the Secular-Democratic consciousness has gained power it has repeatedly led to various kinds of extremism and statism, except in those societies, such as Britain and the United States, where it was balanced and moderated by surviving elements of the Classical-Christian consciousness.
Ah-ha! Classical-Christian? That's an interesting concept, seriously. If we really could be Classically Christian, we might actually realize our libertarian side that lies dormant in far too many of us. Here's a hint: the Old Testament is not where we're going to realize our Classical-Christianess.