Societies and their dominant cultures change slowly when left to their own devices.

Government can be brought to bear, and changes forced when some aspect of society or culture is determined to be “bad” or that a change will make situations “better”. One can argue whether these “changes” result in speeding societal evolution along or rather than changing, it only drives the old animosities, divisions and behaviors underground and while removing them from public view, concentrates and radicalizes them.

The real question is whether government should be involved in societal change at all.

When the situation is particularly egregious, such as eliminating the evil institution of slavery, it is doubtful that many would disagree that such actions can be defended – but, slavery should never have existed if the precepts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were truly and universally applied. Understanding that slavery existed as an institution for some 300 years before there was a United States of America, that the agrarian economy was build upon it, and the status of African slaves as non-people, ending it was not as simple a matter as it appears.

But what about now? In other matters, should society be left alone and be treated as a “free range” society and allowed to develop its own mores at its own speed?

Through an omnipotent government, a minority of people can mandate behaviors that they consider appropriate but not embraced by most people. Using government, a small percentage of activists can forcibly substitute their will for the will of greater society. It is arguable that such a condition exists in the case of the 3% or so of the LGBTQ of society forcing the other 97% to change language, violate religious beliefs and be subjected to a relentless barrage of same sex relationships via the entertainment media.

But it could be any belief or behavior – what if the government decided Satanism has the same current standing as the LGBTQ community? Government has essentially elevated atheism (via their devotion to secularism) to a position on par with Christianity and Judaism.

Collectivists always try to control government because that organization gives them the power to continue their quest to “perfect” society. Many would say this is the same motivation that has driven organized religion for centuries – the difference being that religions have guidebooks (the Bible, the Torah, the Koran) and for better or worse, they tend to be consistent (for the most part). Collectivists have no such guide, they tend to be faddish, driven by the flavor of the month and whatever gives them the biggest club with which to hit their competition.

An old aphorism states that if you believe in nothing, you can fall for anything. The same applies to government as a corollary – if you believe government doesn’t matter, you can be forced to do anything.