  A central pillar of Rehberg's conservatism was his defense of tradition.  The basis for that defense was, again, his critique of reason.  Since reason by itself cannot determine the specific form of a constitution, it never lays down a mandate to abolish the established institutions of a country, and so it is permissible for the statesman to follow tradition.  Sometimes, Rehberg argued, it is not only permissable but also obligatory for the statesman to respect the traditions and established institutions of a  country.[40]  A state is the product of the history of its people, of the experience of many generations; and each generation lays down the foundations on which another must build. What our forefathers built grew out of the unique circumstances of the country, and it has gradually adapted to them; to abolish it would leave us nothing to build upon and make it necessary to create ex nihilo.  Rehberg's defense of tradition and precedent went even further: he argued that many of our social and moral obligations are themselves essentially historical, arising from inheritance.  No state could persist for long, he argued, if future generations did not take over the obligations of past generations, or if children did not assume the duties of their parents (52-53).  It was therefore a fundamental rule of civil society that children inherit the duties and responsibilities of their parents.  Rehberg knew that this was a somewhat harsh doctrine, because it would mean accepting inequalities from birth and aristocratic privileges; yet he insisted upon it all the same: