"Why not?" is a phrase and attitude that is used to justify destruction of existing social institutions.
"Why not?" combines with a short attention span. When a wholly-conclusive answer to "Why not?" cannot instantly be provided in a single self-evidential sentence; then "Why not?" wins and carries the day.
"Why not?" is asked with an implicit assumption that anyone who disagrees thereby approves and supports all that has ever been wrong with whatever is being challenged.
By contrast, the future world opened-up by the application of "Why not?" can be painted wholly positively, with no significant disadvantages.
"Why not?" is an attack on moral comparison and policy realism.
"Why not?" feels itself to embody the free, fun-loving spirit of the bohemian counter culture.
"Why not?" includes everyone in its hopes.
Yet "Why not?" sees itself as a hard-nosed realism - those who try to explain exactly why not, are seen as engaged in fine-spun logic-chopping, or speculative prediction of the future. Anything less that complete and utter instant collapse is seen as inadequate to refute the immediate application of "Why not?".
"Why not?" represents infinite hope versus uncertain prediction.
The power of "Why not?" comes from the widespread social assumption in the mainstream media and among intellectual elites that the onus of proof lies upon those who assert "Not!"
"Why not?" is only applied, however, to selected and left-approved targets. Those who try to apply "Why not?" to leftist principles and practices are instantly identified as moral monsters.
When non-leftists try to use "Why not?" against the left, the most subjective, sensationalist, loose predictions of possible – probable - vast, ramifying harms and humiliations to approved groups are allowed to refute it.
"Why not?" in practice supports left-approved freedom, and crushes all other freedoms.