Read comments to previous post first

This is my response to the comments in the previous post. However, I think it starts to move in a different direction, so figured it would be good to make a new post.
Drury makes a good point that a totally "free" country will NOT be totally "virtuous" (i'm assuming that what I mean by these terms is understood - i put them in quotes only to acknowledge that i'm aware of their limitations), and a totally "virtuous" country will have to sacrifice its freedoms. the more virtue, the less freedom.
So, as is happening now, while people want to preserve the "sanctity of marriage", the "right to life", and whatever other indoctrinated moral values are the flavor of the day, they are willing to submit to things like the Patriot Act and other invasion of privacy and losses of "freedoms".
I suppose what I'm getting at is, I see the above as preservation - in the case of the current administration, protection of virtue by limiting access to knowledge (thinking) and controlling "freedoms" (or abolishing them). Preservation of not only life itself (avoiding holocoust), but of a certain way glorified as tradition (i.e. what Jon was saying about the teaching of the Great Books, or a move to interpret original intent of the Constitution as a Christian intent).
In terms of protection, I think much is claimed in the name of protection that ends up being preservation instead. However, I don't know that I have a clear idea or understand of what would constitute protection. Any input?