For me, it's ideological grounds; I think organizing around local authorities who are extremely accountable to their local polities (who then federate at higher administrative levels via more elections and whom can be recalled) is ideally the best way to maintain local buy-in. We then use local buy-in to allow people to control their work, their products, and their own homes, while preventing larger polities/entities from smashing smaller peoples. We then pool those resources and alleviate shortages where necessary to ensure that those communities lacking in food, etc., are able to make up their shortfalls.
Further, I think trying to give people a shot at something better and at something that promises relative freedom from depravity, want, food insecurity, etc, is likely to get us further than simply trying to rally around Old Glory. Give people a better future instead of turning back toward nostalgia; the Victorians are an explicitly nostalgic sort of polity in the first place, trying to get "back" to a golden age where America was fabulous or something, even if they really are a regressive hellhole.
That said, I think quibbling exactly about what may or may not be banned under a hypothetical future government is probably putting cart before horse.
