The Romanian State, according to its Constitution, it is neutral in relation to the various social and cultural options of its citizens-that is, in relation to the personal visions of a good life? In fact, the State is not neutral in relation to never citizens: he is a "shape of things" that humans, through the mere fact unseen as determines the official language, an educational system, a set of specific institutions may be in violation of citizens ' moral options. From an anarchist position, it's not state precisely because desirable shape and unnoticed into the lives of individuals, within a framework of necessity limited for their styles of life. Instead, on a liberal-minimal will have to answer the question of whether the State is morally neutral towards the ideals of the good life diverge in this framework already limited. In other words, can be found in the Romanian Constitution the principle of neutrality? Unfortunately, the answer is negative.

The Romanian Constitution is minimal, perfectionist and nationalist. It is the maximum for that presupposes the existence of "crimes without victims" to be judged. Is a perfectionist because it contains particular conception of the good life, a specific cultural conception about what are the individual, society and the relationship between them. In the Romanian Constitution, individuals may not choose a certain conception of the good life, if you refuse to "framing" constitutional, will be penalizati. This Constitution leads to discrimination, proposing a single model of socio-cultural, and failure to challenge him. Lastly, it's a Constitution through this NGO, article 54, "Faithfulness towards the country is sacred." This article is a recent invention, since 1991 the constitutional, and ambiguity to create a moral panic. Why fidelity towards the country, while the reference in the Constitution (e) nation? What is the relationship between the State, the nation, the people and the country-Cabrera era Constitution these terms seem to be used as a series of perfect synonyms? Last but not least, how can it be imposed a loyalty concept abstract ("country") and how it can be verified or quantify it? The sacredness of fidelity is another sore point: why do we use a term with religious resonances in an act that should be neutral towards the moral visions of citizens? The fact that it requires loyalty without a definition, the Romanian Constitution opens the way for "crime without victims". How it would manifest itself in my country face infidelity and who would affect it? If I refuse to go to war or roman origins of people, critic or national anthem, or social policy in front of strangers are unfaithful girl country equally? A young man who set fire in public square tricolour should be punished for infidelity?

Article 54 is not the only one that offers a vision of life and maximum perfectionist Romanian citizens. In article 30, paragraph 1. 7, of the Constitution prohibits us voice "defamation of the country and the nation", without ever specifying how can be this defamation. A few lines further down, in article 33, the Constitution imposes on the State the obligation of keeping "spiritual identity" through access to national culture. Cultural model proposed by the Constitution's one nationalist, universalist, with "values" have a seat. Who should make the interpretation of this article? There's probably a Commission attached to the Constitutional Court of axiology that determines what is and what is not Romanian and universal value. The problem of identity is one all maximum and perfectionist who does not living in accordance with spiritual identity is not a good citizen. A cultural relativist, an atheist, an individual who contest the Romanian cultural Canon (Eminescu Calusari, Brancusi, orthodoxy or Mihai Viteazu, etc.) or a homosexual may be slightly degraded as citizens because they are not in agreement with the speech and neoromantice values of the Constitution.

In general, it's a matter that morality occurs between individuals and may not be extended to the relationship between the individual and institutions or structures. In a plurala society (as the Romanian, there are various ethnic minorities, maybe not), life styles do not coincide. We can speak of moral relations between State, society and the individual? Any minimal negative liberal would respond. From a liberal Constitution and minimal should be excluded various articles which refer to abstract notions-coercive, such as that of "morality", another legacy of the constitutions of 1866, 1923, 1938 and 1948. Articles 26 and 30, with article 53, which makes reference to a "public morals", are toxic. They call the societal standards based on morality, on what is right, not what is right. From Immanuel Kant find that cannot sustain a priority of right in front of the call to righteousness, and general entities and almost impossible to define, and contingent-owned continuously in evolution not only limit the development of individualitatilor.

There is however a "tyranny" of public opinion, a majority of the pressure upon minorities, and different ones will always be look as weird. Citizens can challenge and critique each other's life styles, but never the State ought not to decide for one or other of the parties. Through the obsession of "morality", the Romanian Constitution he wants to win a monolithic unit where any alternative is ruled out. The Romanian State remains a medium opaque and narrowly, in which probably a J.S. Mill, Andy Warhol, Timothy Leary, Rocco Siffredi, or Neil might not live. And, beside them, all citizens who want to follow their own ideal of the good life, as it would be utopian.